NationStates

Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/

[PASSED] Repeal "Assisted Suicide Act"

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=396969

Page 4 of 5

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:26 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Calladan wrote:Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you feel strongly enough to help someone end their life, then (I would argue) there are good odds you would most likely be willing to accept whatever comes next. And most people who do assist someone do not try to hide the fact - it isn't a case of not getting caught, it is a case of believing they were justified and did the right thing in doing what they did and that THAT is what should make it not a crime (which, I know, is a very badly phrased sentence but it was the best I could do).

And even if this repeal goes through, we are still going to keep the resolution in place (so to speak).

"If you can enforce your own laws worth a damn, it would. Jail in the C.D.S.P. is unpleasant. Nobody is willing to put up with that. Most of our citizens don't commit murder as a result. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our crime comes from transnational organized crime, such as smuggling, and not citizens subject to our laws. If we turned around and enforced an assisted suicide ban, then personal beliefs would likely go by the wayside. The same is likely true of any nation with a robust criminal justice system."

Excidium Planetis wrote:OOC
Strawman. I never said men don't get raped, I said that a justification for excluding females was that female prisoners of war are more likely to be raped than male prisoners of war. This is especially true when you consider who is taking the prisoners of war. Countries with strong anti-sodomy laws are not likely to have many soldiers willing to rape male prisoners of war. This justification for preventing females serving in combat roles was used by the IDF (and no wonder, Israel's enemies aren't known for their tolerance of homosexuality) originally to exclude female soldiers from combat roles (it has since changed it's position, of course).

OOC: Rape for power and not for sex, which is predominant among causes of rape, rarely falls under cultural aversions to sodomy. There's a lot of cultural anthropology that supports the notion that, when done as a dehumanizing method of torture and degradation, the context is not the same as if it was for sexual gratification between consenting partners. Its horrifying, but generally true. My cultural anthropology professor assigned reading that explained the latter portion of that, specifically in the Latino subcultures he studied.


At any rate, it would be arbitrary and reductive under CoCR to make that distinction based on what might happen rather on what does happen.

Look, I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying it is used as a justification of compelling practical purposes. Would you say that a nation which excluded women from the draft on those grounds was no complying with CoCR in good faith?

OOC: Based on the facts presented, yes, I would make that assertion. Those contentions are generally not supported by facts, and I believe that a good faith interpretation would require reasonable alternatives to excluding women before taking that step. You'd have to use an example other than humans to succeed on the merits of that argument, to my mind.

That's just me, though. Your mileage may vary.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:41 pm
by Bakhton
"The question appears to come down to, 'Is it proper for our organization to risk taking this resolution off of the books in order to make way for a full implementation of the right to die?' Currently, the resolution mandates health standards on all nations performing assisted suicides. If we make this resolution null and void, we are voiding the requirement of states to perform these operations in ethical manners. We do not have a guarantee that a full implementation would succeed. The Patient's Rights Act passed unanimously by this honorable Assembly, legislates standards of care, so there is definite precedent for our concern in such standards. We do not believe that the risk necessary among patients seeking this treatment upon this resolution's repeal would justify the benefit of the imposition of our laws onto those of other nations. One may say, 'In a perfect world, this would be law'. We do not live in a perfect world, we must deal with the opinions of other nations who may wish to ban this practice currently, because to do otherwise, would be to jeopardize the health and well-being of millions. Thank you for your time." Lara Qzu sits back down in her seat and drinks some Diet Dr. Gov, a government brand soda in Bakhton.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:58 am
by Calladan
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Calladan wrote:Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If you feel strongly enough to help someone end their life, then (I would argue) there are good odds you would most likely be willing to accept whatever comes next. And most people who do assist someone do not try to hide the fact - it isn't a case of not getting caught, it is a case of believing they were justified and did the right thing in doing what they did and that THAT is what should make it not a crime (which, I know, is a very badly phrased sentence but it was the best I could do).

And even if this repeal goes through, we are still going to keep the resolution in place (so to speak).

"If you can enforce your own laws worth a damn, it would. Jail in the C.D.S.P. is unpleasant. Nobody is willing to put up with that. Most of our citizens don't commit murder as a result. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our crime comes from transnational organized crime, such as smuggling, and not citizens subject to our laws. If we turned around and enforced an assisted suicide ban, then personal beliefs would likely go by the wayside. The same is likely true of any nation with a robust criminal justice system."


I have to, respectfully, disagree.

Don't get me wrong - we don't have a huge murder problem in Calladan. And while I suspect jail is less unpleasant here than it is in the C.D.S.P. it is not a happy-fun-time-pleasure-park of a place that people are lining up to get in to.

But I honestly believe if you truly, honestly believe in the rightness of your actions (whether they are right or not from a purely independent point of view) then you are going to carry them out regardless of how serious the consequences might be.

If you truly believed that the man who murdered your sister deserved to die for his crimes, and that because Calladan does not have the death penalty (which it doesn't) then the burden of administering justice falls on you, then you would go out and kill him, even though you know you would likely spend most, if not all, of the rest of your life in jail for doing it.

And - by the same token - if your wife is suffering every day, if she is in so much pain that it kills you just to see it, and you know you can end that suffering by giving her a pill, but you also know that that one action would see you go to jail, most likely for a fair part of the rest of your life, I would hazard a guess most people would be willing to give her the pill, because they know what they are doing is morally right and because they BELIEVE it is right, even if it isn't legal.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:28 am
by Excidium Planetis
Separatist Peoples wrote:
OOC: Rape for power and not for sex, which is predominant among causes of rape, rarely falls under cultural aversions to sodomy. There's a lot of cultural anthropology that supports the notion that, when done as a dehumanizing method of torture and degradation, the context is not the same as if it was for sexual gratification between consenting partners. Its horrifying, but generally true. My cultural anthropology professor assigned reading that explained the latter portion of that, specifically in the Latino subcultures he studied.


It may not fall under cultural aversion, no, but it certainly falls under the category of "illegal" in a nation with strong anti-sodomy laws. No matter how willing a straight homophobe is to humiliate a male prisoner, they aren't likely to do it if getting reported for gay sex gets them the death penalty. As you argued with Calladan, enforcement of the law and high penalties can discourage even activities one does believe is right, let alone activities of questionable morality.


At any rate, it would be arbitrary and reductive under CoCR to make that distinction based on what might happen rather on what does happen.

OOC: Based on the facts presented, yes, I would make that assertion. Those contentions are generally not supported by facts, and I believe that a good faith interpretation would require reasonable alternatives to excluding women before taking that step. You'd have to use an example other than humans to succeed on the merits of that argument, to my mind.

But they would be supported by facts, in nations which roleplayed as that. Any player roleplaying as a nation which excludes women for being physically inferior would be able to point to made up statistics on female mile times or something. Nobody said you have to use real world facts to support your position in the WA.


Calladan wrote:And - by the same token - if your wife is suffering every day, if she is in so much pain that it kills you just to see it, and you know you can end that suffering by giving her a pill, but you also know that that one action would see you go to jail, most likely for a fair part of the rest of your life, I would hazard a guess most people would be willing to give her the pill, because they know what they are doing is morally right and because they BELIEVE it is right, even if it isn't legal.

"Yes, Ambassador, but once again, people committing crimes in spite of the law is not a justification for assisting them in crime. Neither is the fact that people believe their crimes are right a justification for aiding in the crime."

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:03 am
by Calladan
Excidium Planetis wrote:
Calladan wrote:And - by the same token - if your wife is suffering every day, if she is in so much pain that it kills you just to see it, and you know you can end that suffering by giving her a pill, but you also know that that one action would see you go to jail, most likely for a fair part of the rest of your life, I would hazard a guess most people would be willing to give her the pill, because they know what they are doing is morally right and because they BELIEVE it is right, even if it isn't legal.

"Yes, Ambassador, but once again, people committing crimes in spite of the law is not a justification for assisting them in crime. Neither is the fact that people believe their crimes are right a justification for aiding in the crime."


And once again you have so totally and utterly missed my point that I am curious as to whether or not you were reading the post I wrote in the first place.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:48 am
by Excidium Planetis
Calladan wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:
"Yes, Ambassador, but once again, people committing crimes in spite of the law is not a justification for assisting them in crime. Neither is the fact that people believe their crimes are right a justification for aiding in the crime."


And once again you have so totally and utterly missed my point that I am curious as to whether or not you were reading the post I wrote in the first place.


"I apologize. Now please explain why nations should be forced to legalize assisted suicide, in spite of the compelling interest in preventing permanent negative consequences as a result of mental illness that should be treated."

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:55 am
by Calladan
Excidium Planetis wrote:
Calladan wrote:
And once again you have so totally and utterly missed my point that I am curious as to whether or not you were reading the post I wrote in the first place.


"I apologize. Now please explain why nations should be forced to legalize assisted suicide, in spite of the compelling interest in preventing permanent negative consequences as a result of mental illness that should be treated."


Since there will be a fair amount of text, here comes a spoiler tag!

I do not believe nations should be forced to legalise it, and I am not certain that I have empirically said that. And while it might have been possible to get the idea that I believed that from what I have written, then I would put that down to the ambiguity of language more than anything else.

Suicide is an individual choice. Asking someone to help you because you are incapable of doing it yourself is also an individual choice, and whether that person decides to agree or not is also an individual choice. NONE of that has anything to do with the state - it is all to do with the morals, ethics and choice of the people in question.

BUT (and I think this is where you are misunderstanding my point)

If a nation decides not to legalise Assisted Suicide (which is their right under the current resolution) I have no problem with them doing that (as in them not legalising it). However my point is that - even if they don't legalise it, and it continues to be regarded as murder in a given nation - I am still convinced that it will continue to occur because (as I said) if you (as an individual) believe that helping someone end their suffering is the right thing to do, and you believe it SO STRONGLY that you are willing to risk a conviction for murder, then I think you would go ahead and do it, even if the nation goes ahead and convicts you of murder.

And in regard to the comments about the negative consequences of mental illness - I truly believe there are times that the negative consequences are far outweighed by the continuation of life. That if the rest of your life is going to be filled with nothing but pain, suffering and agony (and I am not talking about mental pain, suffering and agony - I mean physical pain, suffering and agony - the type where you can not move without screaming, the type where you can not breath without screaming, the type where just lying in bed makes you want to scream) then I truly believe that asking someone to help you end that suffering is not a negative consequence.

But - to sum up my original point - I do not believe nations should forced to legalise assisted suicide, and while it might have been possible to interpret my posts to get that idea, that is not the view I intended to convey.

All my talk about individual rights was just that - about the rights of the individual to chose. If the nation disagrees then the nation disagrees and can punish the individual however it sees fit. In Calladan that is not the case, but - despite my repeated letters to Santa - Calladan's laws apparently do not apply outside Calladan :)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:12 am
by Christian Democrats
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote: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.

Each clause in your current draft misportrays our nation's resolution.

First clause: People should be free to end their lives voluntarily.
Fact: Current WA law allows every person the freedom to kill himself.

Second clause: Choices that do not harm others should be legal.
Fact: Literally, euthanasia involves one person harming another.

Third clause: A ban on euthanasia forces people to suffer.
Fact: A suffering person can seek palliative care or kill himself.

Fourth clause: Gobbledygook about air ambulance flights.
Fact: Nothing of the sort is in our resolution.

Fifth clause: Only "extremely rich" people can buy one-way airline tickets.
Fact: Most people can afford one plane ticket. Also, an airplane isn't the only way to travel.

Knootoss wrote: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.

Really? Forcing an entire racial group to perform manual labor and preventing homicide are morally equivalent?

Calladan wrote:
Auralia wrote: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.

According to your own categories, assisted suicide and euthanasia are matters of "group ethics." (Members of the medical profession don't kill patients, and they don't help patients kill themselves.) Therefore, these issues ought to be left to individual nations.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Suicide is a choice in the C.D.S.P."

Suicide is a legal choice in all member states right now.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:45 am
by Calladan
Christian Democrats wrote:
Calladan wrote: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.

According to your own categories, assisted suicide and euthanasia are matters of "group ethics." (Members of the medical profession don't kill patients, and they don't help patients kill themselves.) Therefore, these issues ought to be left to individual nations.


In the specific instance you quote, I was just differentiating between "personal ethics" and "group ethics" in general, not applying it to the topic at hand. And as to whether members of the medical profession should be permitted to allow (and even help) patients to die with dignity...... I don't disagree that that should be left up to individual nations.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:48 am
by Imperium Anglorum
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We have redrafted this proposal and seek its submission within the year.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:55 am
by Honeydewistania
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We have redrafted this proposal and seek its submission within the year.

"Based on the title, this gets our fullest support. I do however wonder if the Maowese ambassador is around these days, as a while ago they asked me for feedback on a potential replacement."

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:28 am
by Tinhampton
Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The Tinhamptonian delegation is as opposed to any proposal with this title as they were four years ago - especially one which implies that Tinhampton is some backwoods hick-filled city simply for refusing to allow doctors to kill people who want to be killed and needs to be civilised by World Assembly legislation together with all other such member states.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:13 am
by Honeydewistania
Tinhampton wrote:Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The Tinhamptonian delegation is as opposed to any proposal with this title as they were four years ago - especially one which implies that Tinhampton is some backwoods hick-filled city simply for refusing to allow doctors to kill people who want to be killed and needs to be civilised by World Assembly legislation together with all other such member states.

"Any nation that adopts a draconian ‘anti-choice’ stance on suicide, assisted suicide or abortion forever will be considered by our nation as ‘backwoods’ and ‘hick-filled’."

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:17 am
by Separatist Peoples
"We disavow all prior comments on this draft and replace them with a simple Support."

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:10 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Bump

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:41 pm
by Boston Castle
"One thing, Ambassador. In the rest of the clauses of this Repeal, you cite GA 285, yet in the final repeal clause, you cite GA 209. While I think it's clear that you mean to repeal GA 285, I would change that bit of the final Repeal clause to reflect that."

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:13 am
by Wallenburg
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Ambassador, is there a planned replacement?"

There is a planned replacement. I have started consultations on that topic with a number of people. I will not be considering submission of this proposal until such time that the replacement is posted to this forum.

"It would do to remind the esteemed ambassador that there remains no replacement resolution. I will not consider this repeal without a replacement prepared to follow it."

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:56 am
by Kenmoria
“Even in the absence of a replacement, this will be supported by the Kenmorian delegation. Making euthanasia available only to the rich is debatably worse than having it be available to nobody, not that anyone back home would agree. However, a replacement would be ideal.”

PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:06 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Boston Castle wrote:"One thing, Ambassador. In the rest of the clauses of this Repeal, you cite GA 285, yet in the final repeal clause, you cite GA 209. While I think it's clear that you mean to repeal GA 285, I would change that bit of the final Repeal clause to reflect that."

Corrected.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:00 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Bump.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:38 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
The Python may use this draft if I am named as a co-author.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:04 pm
by Apatosaurus
Just spotted this
Imperium Anglorum wrote:GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' violates this duty by ... male member nations complicit ...

Shouldn't this say "make" not "male"?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:12 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Apatosaurus wrote:Just spotted this
Imperium Anglorum wrote:GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' violates this duty by ... male member nations complicit ...

Shouldn't this say "make" not "male"?

Thanks, corrected.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:47 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Bump.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:55 pm
by Morover
IC: "No support, for the first and second clauses."

OOC: Support, for the first and second clauses.
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Page 4 of 5
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/