NationStates

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The Python wrote:As if creative non-compliers would interpret GA law/act in good faith.

"Bad faith interpretation is not compliant with GAR#2. If nations are not compliant with GAR#2, enforcement action applies. If there was no such enforcement action, what would prevent nations from interpreting the original clause to mean what they want?"

... I seriously did not know that was a thing lol

EDIT: Thread is past 100 posts!

In the current thread title:


Omit this.

I agree with Banana's comments re quality of life on the Discord.

As to this clause:


A member nation could impose higher taxes on the heirs thereof because of a triggered inheritance tax. This should be reformulated to mandate equal treatment for heirs as if it were a natural death. You may also want to set a standard for treatment of physicians assisting in suicide. Consider something akin to the standard which Germany uses. See eg Urban Wiesing, "The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide: a template for pluralistic states?" [2021] J Med Ethics, 3.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In the current thread title:

(Self-Yeeting Protocol)

Omit this.

fine lol smh you don't like fun /s

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I agree with Banana's comments re quality of life on the Discord.

I assume that answers the question :P

Imperium Anglorum wrote:A member nation could impose higher taxes on the heirs thereof because of a triggered inheritance tax. This should be reformulated to mandate equal treatment for heirs as if it were a natural death. You may also want to set a standard for treatment of physicians assisting in suicide. Consider something akin to the standard which Germany uses. See eg Urban Wiesing, "The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide: a template for pluralistic states?" [2021] J Med Ethics, 3.

The OP has been updated to reflect changes to clause 3.

Owing to the opening of a very prominent local brewery, Abacathea has had no choice but to send it's most senior and senile delegate to critique the current proposal.

Hugh Jenics approaches the podium, lifting his Coca Cola lense spectacles to his face, scans the brief and addresses the assembled representatives.

"According to our ex-pat census, we have no youth in Asia, as such, we shall abstain".

Abacathea wrote:Owing to the opening of a very prominent local brewery, Abacathea has had no choice but to send it's most senior and senile delegate to critique the current proposal.

Hugh Jenics approaches the podium, lifting his Coca Cola lense spectacles to his face, scans the brief and addresses the assembled representatives.

"According to our ex-pat census, we have no youth in Asia, as such, we shall abstain".

:>

Anyway, are there any objections against bringing this to last call tommorrow or later today?

Seeing as how the author decided to make a joke out of euthanasia with their title, I will be voting against this one.

Wayneactia wrote:Seeing as how the author decided to make a joke out of euthanasia with their title, I will be voting against this one.

k.

And... this is now on last call i.e. this will get submitted once this passes.

The Python wrote:And... this is now on last call i.e. this will get submitted once this gets submitted.

OOC: Don't do that. Submit it if that passes.

Bananaistan wrote:

The Python wrote:And... this is now on last call i.e. this will get submitted once this gets submitted.

OOC: Don't do that. Submit it if that passes.

Ok..

The Python wrote:prosecuting persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of recipients of assisted suicide, or assisting in assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.

What do y'all think about adding that to 3.ii?

The Python wrote:

The Python wrote:prosecuting persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of recipients of assisted suicide, or assisting in assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.

What do y'all think about adding that to 3.ii?

Why do you have this tagged as last call if you plan on making changes?

Thanks for the free bump Wayne

The Python wrote:Thanks for the free bump Wayne

Wayneactia has raised a serious and perfectly valid point about whether your labelling this proposal as being on "LAST CALL" is appropriate. You should respond to it, instead of dismissing it as a "free bump" without further comment.

Tinhampton wrote:

The Python wrote:Thanks for the free bump Wayne

Wayneactia has raised a serious and perfectly valid point about whether your labelling this proposal as being on "LAST CALL" is appropriate. You should respond to it, instead of dismissing it as a "free bump" without further comment.

It's all good Tin, It's all good. The bump was a whole two spots up the page, so two thumbs up I guess? It's all good........

The Python wrote:The General Assembly,

Resolving that individuals should have the legal right to end their lives if they are in agony from an incurable illness, and

Believing that the alleged dangers of legalising assisted suicide do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. In this resolution, “assisted suicide” is the ending of the life of a patient, when:
   
   1. the patient has provided verifiable, revocable and informed consent to the procedure, including the method of assisted suicide, where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives,
   2. the procedure is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,
   3. the patient has a terminal physical illness, an incurable mental illness that directly causes chronic suffering, or any other medical condition that drastically reduces the patient's quality of life for the rest of their life, and
   4. a medical professional assists in the procedure.
2. Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to patients. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.
3. No member nation may discriminate against persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of recipients of assisted suicide, or assisting in assisted suicide, including but not limited to by:
   
   1. imposing higher taxes solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of recipients of assisted suicide, or assisting in assisted suicide,
   2. prosecuting persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of recipients of assisted suicide, or assisting in assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.
   3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons, or
   4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to assisted suicide.
4. No person, group of persons, or member nation may coerce a patient to seek assisted suicide.
5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be forced to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional assists their patients seeking assisted suicide in recieving easily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

Co-authored by [nation=long]Imperium Anglorum[/nation]

Some thoughts.

In section 1(a), the commas don't work out. It should be changed to read more clearly in the latter half of the clause. "Informed consent" also generally is viewed to mean consent that is revocable and fully informed. But repetition isn't altogether the worst. I would change section 1(c) to cut the portions related to terminal illness etc and reference quality of life only. I would omit "for the rest of their life" and substitute "permanently".

In section 2, after "those area" omit the comma.

In section 3, at the end of the introductory clause, omit "by". In subsection (a), for "a heir of recipients of assisted suicide" substitute "an heir of a recipient of assisted suicide". In the couplet "recieving or seeking" include other actions, including paying for, assisting in, and facilitating. In subsection (d), use an intermediate scrutiny test rather than a rational basis one.

In section 4, after "seek" insert "or receive".

In the last section, for "assists" substitute "refers", omit "their", and for "in recieving" [sic] substitute "to".

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Some thoughts.

In section 1(a), the commas don't work out. It should be changed to read more clearly in the latter half of the clause. "Informed consent" also generally is viewed to mean consent that is revocable and fully informed. But repetition isn't altogether the worst. I would change section 1(c) to cut the portions related to terminal illness etc and reference quality of life only. I would omit "for the rest of their life" and substitute "permanently".

k.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In section 2, after "those area" omit the comma.

Also fixed

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In section 3, at the end of the introductory clause, omit "by". In subsection (a), for "a heir of recipients of assisted suicide" substitute "an heir of a recipient of assisted suicide". In the couplet "recieving or seeking" include other actions, including paying for, assisting in, and facilitating.

Done, though I don't see how paying for assisted suicide is relevant? Especially as in theory it'd be free...

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In subsection (d), use an intermediate scrutiny test rather than a rational basis one.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In section 4, after "seek" insert "or receive".

In the last section, for "assists" substitute "refers", omit "their", and for "in recieving" [sic] substitute "to".

Fixed

Ambassador Scott shouts in a remarkably loud voice, the word "BUMP".

Apatosaurus wrote:the patient has provided verifiable, revocable and informed consent to the procedure, including the method thereof, where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives,

I would rephrase to make it clear this is a list: thus, "including the method thereof (where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to), all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives,"

Apatosaurus wrote:§ 1(c). the patient has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces the patient's quality of life,

This is the penultimate element of a list. Include the word "and" at its end.

Apatosaurus wrote:Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to patients. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.

Perhaps consider a standard for locality, something akin to substantial burden either to health, quality of life, finances, time, etc? I'm concerned a nation may decide that something the size of Texas is "locally accessible".

Apatosaurus wrote:3. No member nation may discriminate against persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including but not limited to:

1. imposing higher taxes solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide,
2. prosecuting persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.
3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons, or
4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to assisted suicide.

You can use "said persons" in subsections (a) and (b). I would also put after the long list of what persons are covered by this clause something marking that that list is what "said persons" refers to. Thus, insert after the list '("said persons")'.

The last line isn't a non-discrimination clause. It's bar on the type of laws that nations can create. I also would consider using intermediate scrutiny for this instead of something like rational basis: a nation could claim that their law is not to restrict access, but merely to ensure that assisted suicides are conducted more safely or with some other justifications. That belongs in a separate section and doesn't belong in this list. Remember to move the "or" to the penultimate subsection after the final subsection is split into a new section.

Apatosaurus wrote:[*]No person, group of persons, or member nation may coerce a patient to seek assisted suicide.

Add on "undergo" or something akin to that.

Apatosaurus wrote:A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be forced to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

I would also add the "public statement" requirement. People should be able to tell that the professional does not want to help in it before having to talk to them first. You can borrow language from the defeated "Conscientious objection to abortion" proposal for that.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:the patient has provided verifiable, revocable and informed consent to the procedure, including the method thereof, where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives,

I would rephrase to make it clear this is a list: thus, "including the method thereof (where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to), all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives,"

Done.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:§ 1(c). the patient has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces the patient's quality of life,

This is the penultimate element of a list. Include the word "and" at its end.

And done.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to patients. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.

Perhaps consider a standard for locality, something akin to substantial burden either to health, quality of life, finances, time, etc? I'm concerned a nation may decide that something the size of Texas is "locally accessible".

Fixed, is it better now?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:3. No member nation may discriminate against persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including but not limited to:

1. imposing higher taxes solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide,
2. prosecuting persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.
3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons, or
4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to assisted suicide.

You can use "said persons" in subsections (a) and (b). I would also put after the long list of what persons are covered by this clause something marking that that list is what "said persons" refers to. Thus, insert after the list '("said persons")'.

Decided to just remove the "said persons" instead.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The last line isn't a non-discrimination clause. It's bar on the type of laws that nations can create. I also would consider using intermediate scrutiny for this instead of something like rational basis: a nation could claim that their law is not to restrict access, but merely to ensure that assisted suicides are conducted more safely or with some other justifications. That belongs in a separate section and doesn't belong in this list. Remember to move the "or" to the penultimate subsection after the final subsection is split into a new section.

Alright, I changed it.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:[*]No person, group of persons, or member nation may coerce a patient to seek assisted suicide.

Add on "undergo" or something akin to that.

Done.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Apatosaurus wrote:A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be forced to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

I would also add the "public statement" requirement. People should be able to tell that the professional does not want to help in it before having to talk to them first. You can borrow language from the defeated "Conscientious objection to abortion" proposal for that.

Done as well.

Member nations are prohibited from implementing policies

This is wordy and unnecessary. Just use "No member nation may implement policies..." or "Member nations may not implement policies..."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Member nations are prohibited from implementing policies

This is wordy and unnecessary. Just use "No member nation may implement policies..." or "Member nations may not implement policies..."

Done.

publically

This word is misspelt. Substitute "publicly".

No member nation may implement policies with the sole or main intent of restricting access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will.

The hypothetical Tex Christiansen: The main intent of my proposal to force all physicians who perform assisted suicide to have admitting privileges at a hospital with a Tier 4 ICU is not to restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will! It is merely to ensure that if assisted suicide goes wrong, the doctor can ensure the best care and ameliorate any complications!

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

publically

This word is misspelt. Substitute "publicly".

Fixed.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

No member nation may implement policies with the sole or main intent of restricting access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will.

The hypothetical Tex Christiansen: The main intent of my proposal to force all physicians who perform assisted suicide to have admitting privileges at a hospital with a Tier 4 ICU is not to restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will! It is merely to ensure that if assisted suicide goes wrong, the doctor can ensure the best care and ameliorate any complications!

How's this:

No member nation may implement policies that substantially restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will as per section 1, excluding valid health and safety concerns or provisions laid out in this resolution.

Apatosaurus wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The hypothetical Tex Christiansen: The main intent of my proposal to force all physicians who perform assisted suicide to have admitting privileges at a hospital with a Tier 4 ICU is not to restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will! It is merely to ensure that if assisted suicide goes wrong, the doctor can ensure the best care and ameliorate any complications!

How's this:

No member nation may implement policies that substantially restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will as per section 1, excluding valid health and safety concerns or provisions laid out in this resolution.

How does this get around Tex Christiansen's claim as to the purpose of his law?