[PASSED] Repeal "Assisted Suicide Act"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Second, that Assisted Suicide Act does not infringe on the right to commit suicide, as it expressly allows travel to foreign nations to secure suicide. This repeal relies on a dishonest premise."

PARSONS: We have added further argumentation which fleshes out the nuance of our argument.

[Excidium Planetis]

Observing that while the proposal allows for travel to different jurisdictions, such travel is extremely expensive, not to mention foreign medical costs which are generally uncovered by domestic health insurance, making it inaccessible to the vast majority of the population,

"Even if this were true, the WA should rather focus on lowering international travel costs and requiring better healthcare coverage, both of which have benefits beyond suicide. But, I contest that travel to other jurisdictions is prohibitively expensive. These days it isn't hard to get a spot on a ship to Chri-irah, and the Birrin medical doctors there will probably provide the suicide for little cost if it means they not only eliminate an oppressor, but also get to study a cadaver for increased experience with the human body.

"Besides," Blackbourne continues, "it isn't like they'll need the money after they die, the suicidal can afford to spend on international trips."

OOC:
To give a real life example, until recent years when border security went up considerably, travel from California into Mexico was not expensive (I mean, it still isn't, but now you need a passport and whatnot, which has increased the cost somewhat). If you had a car, you could easily drive down and cross into Tijuana. I believe that prior to Roe v. Wade, trips to Mexico for abortions were common, but don't quote me on that because I'm not sure. Can't tell you how expensive those abortions were, but conceivably someone desperate enough could afford it.

[Bakhton]

Lara Qzu, recently promoted to World Assembly Ambassador with no previous experience, writes:

"While our country asserts the right of all workers to end their life via assisted suicide, we disagree with the concept of this repeal. It appears to be an obvious attempt to remove legislation allowing for sovereignty and choice on an issue so that one point of view may be asserted above those of others. We doubt this issue rises to such a severity that it needs such extremity."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: We cannot support a repeal that would remove the rights of our nation to decide the terms of euthanasia law. The pathetic, primitivistic, and entirely reprehensible stance against such on the grounds of so-called 'individual choice' is not a position that we will allow the World Assembly to take. In short, we are opposed to this repeal, and will ensure that it never reaches the consideration of vote.

Fairburn: Nice speech, but we still officially support this repeal on the condition that a suitable replacement is passed.

[Christian Democrats]

"Second, that Assisted Suicide Act does not infringe on the right to commit suicide, as it expressly allows travel to foreign nations to secure suicide. This repeal relies on a dishonest premise."

PARSONS: We have added further argumentation which fleshes out the nuance of our argument.

We agree with the Excidium Planetis delegation that this proposal potentially creates a false impression -- that the Assisted Suicide Act somehow prevents people from having "the ability to voluntarily end their lives." In fact, Resolution 180 provides international legal protection to people who want to end their own lives; and the Assisted Suicide Act itself provides international legal protection to people who want to travel to foreign member states so that physicians can end their lives for them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: We have added further argumentation which fleshes out the nuance of our argument.

We agree with the Excidium Planetis delegation that this proposal potentially creates a false impression -- that the Assisted Suicide Act somehow prevents people from having "the ability to voluntarily end their lives." In fact, Resolution 180 provides international legal protection to people who want to end their own lives; and the Assisted Suicide Act itself provides international legal protection to people who want to travel to foreign member states so that physicians can end their lives for them.

PARSONS: We've edited the proposal somewhat to clarify our argument.

[Knootoss]

Ambassador, we were under the impression that your nation generally pursues a NatSov agenda in this Assembly.

"Support for a repeal cannot be inconsistent with the advancement of national sovereignty. More to the point, I believe that individual rights should be safeguarded. Either assisted suicide is a universal individual right, in which case it ought to be safeguarded in all nations and for all individuals, or it is not - in which case it should not be 'protected' by a resolution promoting complicated travel arrangements.

I would ask the Christian Democrats in turn why they support the policy that is being promoted in the resolution presently on the books. If assisted suicide is murder then surely it is right and just for the State to prevent an individual from moving abroad to carry it out. It does not seem morally consistent."

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

[Excidium Planetis]

Ambassador, we were under the impression that your nation generally pursues a NatSov agenda in this Assembly.

"Support for a repeal cannot be inconsistent with the advancement of national sovereignty."

"It can, when that repeal is going to be followed by a resolution which limits national sovereignty to a greater degree than the repealed resolution. Better to have a resolution which minimally infringes on national sovereignty than to support the effort to infringe on national sovereignty further."

More to the point, I believe that individual rights should be safeguarded. Either assisted suicide is a universal individual right, in which case it ought to be safeguarded in all nations and for all individuals, or it is not - in which case it should not be 'protected' by a resolution promoting complicated travel arrangements.

"Individual sovereignty and national sovereignty are not the same. In fact, they are directly opposed, for individual sovereignty necessarily removes some of the rights of the nation and places it in the hands of the individual. Those resolution which protect individual rights the most are those that are most opposed to national sovereignty, for example, Reproductive Freedoms protect the individual right to termination of pregnancy at the expense of national sovereignty. Any nation which supports World Assembly resolutions on individual rights on non-international issues must be opposed to national sovereignty on non-international issues."

I would ask the Christian Democrats in turn why they support the policy that is being promoted in the resolution presently on the books. If assisted suicide is murder then surely it is right and just for the State to prevent an individual from moving abroad to carry it out. It does not seem morally consistent."

"I cannot speak for the Christian Democrat delegation, but they appear to be choosing the lesser of two evils."

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: Just because people believe in national sovereignty does not mean that the only thing they care about is national sovereignty. For example, I am quite confident that most national sovereigntists would support the World Assembly's ban on slavery.

[Excidium Planetis]

PARSONS: Just because people believe in national sovereignty does not mean that the only thing they care about is national sovereignty. For example, I am quite confident that most national sovereigntists would support the World Assembly's ban on slavery.

"Majority does not equate to correctness, Duke Parsons. The World Assembly's role in regulating slavery should be limited, if it must intervene at all, to regulating the slave trade, the international component. In terms of domestic slave trade, nations should have sovereignty."

[Knootoss]

"I'm afraid that Ambassador Blackbourne misunderstands the nature of national sovereignty, or perhaps disagrees in part or in whole with the way in which its principles have been used by our delegation.

There are indeed some governments who use national sovereignty as a flag of convenience. They might wish to pursue unpopular or oppressive policies at home, such as the practice of institutionalised plantation slavery or the banning of assisted suicide for mature, consenting individuals. Rather than speaking up for their true cause, they wrap their cause in the flag of liberty and try to sell it to the Assembly in such a fashion. National sovereignty is then used as a fig-leaf for a desire to impinge on individual sovereignty.

By contrast, the Dutch Democratic Republic believes in both individual sovereignty and national sovereignty, in that order. The universal rights of the individual must be upheld above the rights of the group, or even the state. This assembly has for the most part agreed with this view of liberty by upholding high standards for the rights of individuals to speak, worship, make love, and so forth."

National sovereignty then is an extension of this devolutionary principle, by which matters should be organised on the lowest possible level. Matters of personal ethics should be handled by the individual. Organisational and political matters that do not have any inter-governmental aspect by contrast are best handled by the individual states. That is why we oppose the mandatory imposition of free engineering classes in every school by writ of the World Assembly, for example. It is also why we are sceptical about the proliferation of regulatory committees and bureaucratic busybodies appointed in the name of the World Assembly, whose purpose seems to be the second-guessing of policies already being carried out at the national level.

The sovereigntist cause consists of fighting such wasteful, dirigiste policies, not in the defence of dictators.

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

[Imperium Anglorum]

PARSONS: Just because people believe in national sovereignty does not mean that the only thing they care about is national sovereignty. For example, I am quite confident that most national sovereigntists would support the World Assembly's ban on slavery.

"Majority does not equate to correctness, Duke Parsons. The World Assembly's role in regulating slavery should be limited, if it must intervene at all, to regulating the slave trade, the international component. In terms of domestic slave trade, nations should have sovereignty."

NORTH: We don't agree. His Grace the Duke of Geneva's comments speak about the question of dealing with multiple duties. One can have multiple moral obligations at the same time. The question is which ones are more important and which ones ought be put first. Also, the proper address for a Duke is 'Your Grace'.

PARSONS: I agree with Lord North's statement and also agree with Ambassador Marais' more detailed assessment. Though, I should note that this is a committee room, not Parliament. I'm fine with Parsons, just without the 'Duke' before it.

[Auralia]

Matters of personal ethics should be handled by the individual.

Except, of course, for the ethic that "matters of personal ethics should be handled by the individual". That ethic must be held universally for some reason. You don't see the contradiction here?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Calladan]

Matters of personal ethics should be handled by the individual.

Except, of course, for the ethic that "matters of personal ethics should be handled by the individual". That ethic must be held universally for some reason. You don't see the contradiction here?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

That's just nonsense (with all due respect, of course).

Personal ethics are held by the individual. Someone decides that it is ethical to execute child molesters for their crimes. Someone else decides it is not. That is a personal ethic.

Group ethics (for want of a better term) are decided by the group. Teachers DO NOT sleep with their students. That is a professional ethic that is (or should be) held sacrosanct by all members of the teaching profession and one that - when a person becomes a teacher - they agree to abide by or face the consequences.

Circumcision is a personal choice, and as such what the rest of the world, the rest of the country thinks really should not matter, and the rest of the world and the rest of the country should not get a say in the choice that a person makes because it is entirely up to the person's ethics as to whether they want to do it or not.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"I would ask the Christian Democrats in turn why they support the policy that is being promoted in the resolution presently on the books. If assisted suicide is murder then surely it is right and just for the State to prevent an individual from moving abroad to carry it out. It does not seem morally consistent."

Fairburn: I agree completely. There are some disgusting examples of hypocrisy from both sides here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I would ask the Christian Democrats in turn why they support the policy that is being promoted in the resolution presently on the books. If assisted suicide is murder then surely it is right and just for the State to prevent an individual from moving abroad to carry it out. It does not seem morally consistent."

Fairburn: I agree completely. There are some disgusting examples of hypocrisy from both sides here.

PARSONS: Yes, along with quite the whiff of sheer immorality.

[Excidium Planetis]

By contrast, the Dutch Democratic Republic believes in both individual sovereignty and national sovereignty, in that order. The universal rights of the individual must be upheld above the rights of the group, or even the state. This assembly has for the most part agreed with this view of liberty by upholding high standards for the rights of individuals to speak, worship, make love, and so forth."

"This Assembly has agreed with this view of 'liberty', and it is a mockery of true liberty, as it imposes on the rights of even individuals when it claims to uphold them, in part because this Assembly is opposed to national sovereignty. At its base, the World Assembly, as an international body, was created with the express purpose of eliminating at least some of the sovereignty of nations, and the degree to which this Assembly has had control over national affairs has steadily increased throughout the years as a greater number of active resolutions telling nations what they can't and what they must do has increased.

"My nation, like most others here, has conceded to the supremacy of the WA in part because there are some matters where national sovereignty simply does not suffice. War is the premiere example, individual nations can never regulate war between nations sufficiently, only an international alliance of nations can do so. Quite obviously, assisted suicide is not a matter which requires international oversight. Nations are quite capable of legalizing assisted suicide on their own, or banning it on their own.

"I hesitate to call you a hypocrite, Ambassador, as I am not aware of your position on them, but has your delegation in the past supported resolutions to legalize drugs, and to uphold the individual right to own and use deadly weapons? If one really truly believes that the rights of individuals come before the rights of nations, then such resolutions should be supported. And yet such resolutions are absent from the books of WA law. Why should individuals be granted, by order of the WA, the right to have themselves injected with lethal drugs, when they do not possess the right to freely inject themselves with slightly less lethal drugs? Drug use is of no more harm than suicide."

[Auralia]

Personal ethics are held by the individual. Someone decides that it is ethical to execute child molesters for their crimes. Someone else decides it is not. That is a personal ethic.

Group ethics (for want of a better term) are decided by the group. Teachers DO NOT sleep with their students. That is a professional ethic that is (or should be) held sacrosanct by all members of the teaching profession and one that - when a person becomes a teacher - they agree to abide by or face the consequences.

What distinguishes a "personal" ethic from a "group" ethic, and why should they be treated differently in terms of the scope of their applicability? (Moreover, as an aside, how can an opinion about the punishment of others possibly be considered a "personal" ethic?) I believe there is no such distinction; the moral law is binding upon everyone in its entirety, for all should seek to accord their own will with God's.

"I would ask the Christian Democrats in turn why they support the policy that is being promoted in the resolution presently on the books. If assisted suicide is murder then surely it is right and just for the State to prevent an individual from moving abroad to carry it out. It does not seem morally consistent."

It was a legislative compromise; I'm sure the ambassador is familiar with the concept? I'm certain the delegation from Christian Democrats would have allowed nations to ban travel for the purposes of assisted suicide if they had thought it was politically feasible. It was more important to ensure that nations had the right to ban the procedure itself, though, which unfortunately was likely only possible with the aforementioned exemption.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Excidium Planetis]

Circumcision is a personal choice, and as such what the rest of the world, the rest of the country thinks really should not matter, and the rest of the world and the rest of the country should not get a say in the choice that a person makes because it is entirely up to the person's ethics as to whether they want to do it or not.

"We aren't discussing circumcision, Ambassador McGill, but suicide. Circumcision is a personal choice, it affects no one negatively except yourself and perhaps a few sexual partners throughout your life. Suicide, however, is a permanent end to your productivity, depriving your nation of a valuable worker and soldier, and negatively impacting the emotions of friends and loved ones with a premature death. The state has a compelling interest to preserve the lives of its citizens, and that includes reducing suicide rates, something which banning assisted suicide helps achieve."

[Calladan]

Personal ethics are held by the individual. Someone decides that it is ethical to execute child molesters for their crimes. Someone else decides it is not. That is a personal ethic.

Group ethics (for want of a better term) are decided by the group. Teachers DO NOT sleep with their students. That is a professional ethic that is (or should be) held sacrosanct by all members of the teaching profession and one that - when a person becomes a teacher - they agree to abide by or face the consequences.

What distinguishes a "personal" ethic from a "group" ethic, and why should they be treated differently in terms of the scope of their applicability? (Moreover, as an aside, how can an opinion about the punishment of others possibly be considered a "personal" ethic?) I believe there is no such distinction; the moral law is binding upon everyone in its entirety, for all should seek to accord their own will with God's.

Whose God? Mine (who doesn't exist - he was made up by a guy who moved to Calladan in 36 DE)? Yours? The guy who lives down the road? The guy who sacrifices his daughter in the name of his God?

What distinguishes a "personal" ethic from a "group" ethic, and why should they be treated differently in terms of the scope of their applicability?

I am not a teacher. If I want to sleep with a student from the local university then (my wife finding out and beating me to death aside) the only thing stopping me is the fact my personal ethics - I love my wife and am not going to cheat on her. Well - that and most of the students are younger than my eldest daughter and that's just creepy.

(Moreover, as an aside, how can an opinion about the punishment of others possibly be considered a "personal" ethic?)

A personal opinion - something I hold to be true or false in my heart - is THE most personal thing we have. If I act on it - if I decide to go down to the local prison, go to the cell of a recently convicted child molester, pull out a knife and stab him to death - then yes, that would no longer be just a personal ethic (relatively speaking). But while it is just me deciding if child molesters should be executed or not, it is OBVIOUSLY just a personal thing.

I believe there is no such distinction; the moral law is binding upon everyone in its entirety, for all should seek to accord their own will with God's.

Like I said - whose God? Should I accord my will with your God, or with my God? (My god is made up, by the way - he doesn't exist, never has and never will). Or should I accord my will with the "God" of The Blessed Order of The Star Chamber, who were responsible for mass murder, rape, torture, genocide and slaughter the likes of which you can not imagine during The Seven Years of Darkness in Calladan?

The way I see it working is like this - every person must always act in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Which I admit I stole from "The Pirates of Penzance" but still - it is a good guide for life (even if it was said by a murdering, thieving scoundrel). We live in a society of laws, and you can follow those laws or disobey those laws - but if you do, you must be prepared to chance the consequences. (Another line I stole - in fact, it is the end of the previous line).

But to bring all this back ground to the topic at hand -

Whether to end your own life or not is - in the end - a purely personal choice. It has nothing to do with the state, or The WA, but is only to do with you and your family (should you have one). And if you are in a state of such suffering that death is actually a better state of existence than continual pain, then I think you should be permitted to do it. However I understand that to be able to take your own life, you need the ability to hold the needle, to walk in front of a train, to throw yourself off a cliff - if you are unable to walk, to move, or even to grasp the pill long enough to put it in your mouth - then you would need help to do it - which is where the original act comes in.

I do not believe it should be repealed, especially in light of the fact that the only replacement available seems to want to universally ban it.

[Aclion]

"In light of recent arguments I have been instructed to withdraw our support for this repeal until such time as a suitable replacement is forthcoming. Additionally I want to clarify the Aclionian government's position: We will oppose any legislation that infringes on a persons voluntary right to die."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"In light of recent arguments I have been instructed to withdraw our support for this repeal until such time as a suitable replacement is forthcoming."

Fairburn: We've already drafted a suitable replacement.

"Additionally I want to clarify the Aclionian government's position: We will oppose any legislation that infringes on a persons voluntary right to die."

Fairburn: It would be impossible to pass such legislation due to GA #180 a.k.a A Decriminalization of Suicide.

[Excidium Planetis]

Whether to end your own life or not is - in the end - a purely personal choice. It has nothing to do with the state, or The WA, but is only to do with you and your family (should you have one).

"Not so. The state does have a compelling interest in suicide. The actions of the individual have consequences for the state. Getting fired reduces the tax revenue of the state, and the gross domestic product. Murdering someone has a similar effect. Committing suicide does as well. The now deceased person is no longer working and will never work again, those that wish to attend their funeral may have to take time of work, depressed individuals do not perform as well at work than happy individuals, et cetera. All this loss in productivity, the state has reasons to prevent, especially by discouraging suicide. Many nations have suicide prevention programs, aimed at discouraging those contemplating suicide or assisting those who fear someone they know is suicidal. Mental health clinics, psychiatric wards, exist in part to help those with suicidal tendencies recover, and the World Assembly has affirmed this stance, declaring, in particular:

suicide motivated by many of the common underlying motivations behind suicide (e.g., despair, depression, substance abuse) is a medical emergency which demands therapy and treatment;

"In my experience, 'therapy' does not include killing the patient. It is the role of medical professionals, and the state which creates guidelines or provides funding for them, to treat suicide, not participate in it."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Committing suicide does as well. The now deceased person is no longer working and will never work again, those that wish to attend their funeral may have to take time of work, depressed individuals do not perform as well at work than happy individuals, et cetera. All this loss in productivity, the state has reasons to prevent, especially by discouraging suicide.

PARSONS: One could use that exact same argument for the state to compel people to kill themselves. The state does not want to pay your medical bill, Grandma...

[Excidium Planetis]

Committing suicide does as well. The now deceased person is no longer working and will never work again, those that wish to attend their funeral may have to take time of work, depressed individuals do not perform as well at work than happy individuals, et cetera. All this loss in productivity, the state has reasons to prevent, especially by discouraging suicide.

PARSONS: One could use that exact same argument for the state to compel people to kill themselves. The state does not want to pay your medical bill, Grandma...

"The state should not pay medical bills, in my opinion. That is the role of private industries."