[PASSED] Access to Life-Ending Services

[Simone Republic]

My personal suggestion would be for the words "assisted suicide" to be replaced with "death with dignity" or another term that does not involve legal implications in terms of suicide (for example, insurance). This is the rationale for the Oregon and Washington State statues.

[Apatosaurus]

My personal suggestion would be for the words "assisted suicide" to be replaced with "death with dignity" or another term that does not involve legal implications in terms of suicide (for example, insurance). This is the rationale for the Oregon and Washington State statues.

Hm, you have a point, but I think "death in dignity" seems like really strange wording in context? For example, "performing death with dignity" sounds ridiculous in my opinion (no offense). It used to be "euthanasia", but people in the WA server commented that euthanasia is slightly different to assisted suicide, so...

Anyway, I poked IA about submitting the repeal now.

[Tinhampton]

While I still don't support this, I do have some concerns with your actual text - none of which have anything to do with Article 7 whatsoever.

1. Near-silence on the assisted suicide of non-eligible patients: Article 3, despite requiring that members "provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction," says nothing about whether or not non-eligible patients are allowed to receive assisted suicide. Even Article 6's requirement that "[n]o person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure an individual to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide" does not prevent such entities from just forcing assisted suicide onto any patient they like - eligible or not - without asking their permission or giving them any warning (and therefore pressuring them).
   
   
2. Those who assist the assisted suicide of even non-eligible patients cannot be prosecuted: Article 1 defines assisted suicide as "the ending of a life of a sapient patient," and Article 3 requires only that members "provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction" (as defined in Article 2).
   
   However, Article 5 forbids "prosecuting persons for... assisting in assisted suicide," even if they assisted with the assisted suicide of a person who is not an eligible patient according to Article 2. This would allow "medical professionals" who assist with the assisted suicide of non-eligible patients - including patients who refuse to give their consent to receiving assisted suicide, have been pressured pursuant to Article 6, or are suffering from nothing more serious than a broken toe - to get away with flagrantly illegal, or at least immoral (even to a liberal atheist), acts.
   
   
3. Member states are allowed to send eligible patients to unregulated clinics: Article 3 requires that "in areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible... member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services." Nowhere is it required that such clinics be in WA member states and therefore subject to the provisions of this resolution - including Article 6's provisions against medical professionals coercing eligible patients to "seek, rec[ei]ve or undergo assisted suicide" - or any other resolution (especially about medical ethics).
   
   The fact that member states, not affected eligible patients or their families, "must arrange... travel" to such a clinic effectively allows them to indirectly ignore this resolution for such patients (although I can completely understand why member states should pay for such travel).
   
   
4. Dangerous definitions abound, episode 1: Article 1's full definition of assisted suicide is "the ending of the life of a sapient patient, where a medical professional assists in the procedure, and the procedure is fast, and free from extreme pain or agony inflicted on the recipient." A doctor-manned guillotine provides a fast, pain-free and medical-professional-assisted way to end a sapient patient's life - yet it is not what most people would consider to be assisted suicide.
   
   Consider HR#164 "Individual Self-Determination," whose Article 7 demanded that "Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted." Its repeal, HR#221, made an excellent point when it argued that said Article "only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively)."
   
   You do - at least - save prospective repeal authors from having to do some of The Sacred Orb and Cristia Agape's legwork by requiring merely that assisted suicide procedures meet just two of the criteria laid out by HR#164: namely "fast, and free from extreme pain or agony [for] the recipient."
   
   
5. Dangerous definitions abound, episode 2: Article 2a requires that an eligible patient have "an incurable medical condition... that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question." By this metric, a prominent professional footballer with few formal qualifications who's had an amputated leg, can't find anything above an entry-level job, and feels as though the reduced wages and lack of potential career progression would "drastically and permanently reduce their quality of life" is an eligible patient. In fact, absolutely no vetting is required, not even by your personal doctor or those closest to you - just say that your "incurable medical condition... drastically and permanently reduces [your] quality of life" and you're well on the way to becoming eligible for assisted suicide, free of charge.

To wit: This proposal, as written, allows for an extremely broad definition of "eligible patients;" says very little, if anything, about assisted suicide procedures for non-eligible patients; bans members from prosecuting the assisters of those assisted suicides of non-eligible patients which they choose to forbid; allows for even relatively unconscionable means of assisted suicide, provided that they fulfil two vague criteria; and even allows members to send disadvantaged eligible patients to "a clinic" which might not even be subject to its provisions. If these flaws are not patched, I fear that I may be far from its most prominent opponent; as it stands, the World Assembly might as well be silent about assisted suicide after GA#285's repeal.

[Apatosaurus]

While I still don't support this, I do have some concerns with your actual text - none of which have anything to do with Article 7 whatsoever.

1. Near-silence on the assisted suicide of non-eligible patients: Article 3, despite requiring that members "provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction," says nothing about whether or not non-eligible patients are allowed to receive assisted suicide. Even Article 6's requirement that "[n]o person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure an individual to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide" does not prevent such entities from just forcing assisted suicide onto any patient they like - eligible or not - without asking their permission or giving them any warning (and therefore pressuring them).
   
   
2. Those who assist the assisted suicide of even non-eligible patients cannot be prosecuted: Article 1 defines assisted suicide as "the ending of a life of a sapient patient," and Article 3 requires only that members "provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction" (as defined in Article 2).
   
   However, Article 5 forbids "prosecuting persons for... assisting in assisted suicide," even if they assisted with the assisted suicide of a person who is not an eligible patient according to Article 2. This would allow "medical professionals" who assist with the assisted suicide of non-eligible patients - including patients who refuse to give their consent to receiving assisted suicide, have been pressured pursuant to Article 6, or are suffering from nothing more serious than a broken toe - to get away with flagrantly illegal, or at least immoral (even to a liberal atheist), acts.

Fair enough, how's this:

1. In this resolution, “assisted suicide” is the ending of the life of a sapient patient, where:
   
   1. The procedure is assisted by a medical professional trained in assisting in assisted suicide,
   2. The procedure is fast, and free from extreme pain or agony inflicted on the recipient,
   3. The recipient has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question, and
   4. The recipient has provided verifiable, informed consent on their own free will to the procedure and method thereof (where they are fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives); this consent may be withdrawn by the individual in question at any time.
2. An "eligible patient" is further defined as an individual that:
   
   1. Has provided verifiable, informed consent on their own free will to assisted suicide and method thereof (where they are fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives); this consent may be withdrawn by the individual in question at any time,
   2. Has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question, and
   3. Is a member of a sapient species that biologically has the ability to die.

Member states are allowed to send eligible patients to unregulated clinics: Article 3 requires that "in areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible... member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services." Nowhere is it required that such clinics be in WA member states and therefore subject to the provisions of this resolution - including Article 6's provisions against medical professionals coercing eligible patients to "seek, rec[ei]ve or undergo assisted suicide" - or any other resolution (especially about medical ethics).

The fact that member states, not affected eligible patients or their families, "must arrange... travel" to such a clinic effectively allows them to indirectly ignore this resolution for such patients (although I can completely understand why member states should pay for such travel).

Good point, did this:

Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, such that a substantial burden to quality of life, time or finances to eligible patients in those areas would otherwise be posed, member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to the nearest clinic that provides assisted suicide in a member nation.

Dangerous definitions abound, episode 1: Article 1's full definition of assisted suicide is "the ending of the life of a sapient patient, where a medical professional assists in the procedure, and the procedure is fast, and free from extreme pain or agony inflicted on the recipient." A doctor-manned guillotine provides a fast, pain-free and medical-professional-assisted way to end a sapient patient's life - yet it is not what most people would consider to be assisted suicide.

Consider HR#164 "Individual Self-Determination," whose Article 7 demanded that "Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted." Its repeal, HR#221, made an excellent point when it argued that said Article "only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively)."

You do - at least - save prospective repeal authors from having to do some of The Sacred Orb and Cristia Agape's legwork by requiring merely that assisted suicide procedures meet just two of the criteria laid out by HR#164: namely "fast, and free from extreme pain or agony [for] the recipient."

"Has provided verifiable, informed consent on their own free will to assisted suicide and method thereof"

Dangerous definitions abound, episode 2: Article 2a requires that an eligible patient have "an incurable medical condition... that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question." By this metric, a prominent professional footballer with few formal qualifications who's had an amputated leg, can't find anything above an entry-level job, and feels as though the reduced wages and lack of potential career progression would "drastically and permanently reduce their quality of life" is an eligible patient. In fact, absolutely no vetting is required, not even by your personal doctor or those closest to you - just say that your "incurable medical condition... drastically and permanently reduces [your] quality of life" and you're well on the way to becoming eligible for assisted suicide, free of charge.

... While it can be caused by one (afaik), amputation is not a "medical condition".

[Imperium Anglorum]

As an overview, it seems clear to me that the "concerns" Tinhampton raises are really just low quality FUD claims rather than anything related to a meaningful objection. They collapse quickly under any scrutiny. The author should revert the unnecessary changes and perhaps clarify in some areas to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation.

---

Near-silence on the assisted suicide of non-eligible patients:

Article 3, despite requiring that members "provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction," says nothing about whether or not non-eligible patients are allowed to receive assisted suicide. Even Article 6's requirement that "[n]o person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure an individual to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide" does not prevent such entities from just forcing assisted suicide onto any patient they like - eligible or not - without asking their permission or giving them any warning (and therefore pressuring them).

This interpretation is hilariously wrong. Assisted suicide is defined with section 1(d) attributes in mind; insofar as someone isn't consenting, it isn't assisted suicide and is probably murder. Unless you want to make the separate argument that "sOmE memBeR NaTioNs miGHt nOT haVE mUrDEr lAwS" (to which I will just raise reasonable nation theory) it falls especially flat.

Those who assist the assisted suicide of even non-eligible patients cannot be prosecuted:

Article 1 defines assisted suicide as "the ending of a life of a sapient patient," and Article 3 requires only that members "provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction" (as defined in Article 2).

However, Article 5 forbids "prosecuting persons for... assisting in assisted suicide," even if they assisted with the assisted suicide of a person who is not an eligible patient according to Article 2. This would allow "medical professionals" who assist with the assisted suicide of non-eligible patients - including patients who refuse to give their consent to receiving assisted suicide, have been pressured pursuant to Article 6, or are suffering from nothing more serious than a broken toe - to get away with flagrantly illegal, or at least immoral (even to a liberal atheist), acts.

This interpretation is obviously wrong insofar as section 1 is longer than the quoted portion. The pretence that section 1 doesn't control what "assisted suicide" means in the resolution is a clear violation of the consistent usage canon.

Member states are allowed to send eligible patients to unregulated clinics:

Article 3 requires that "in areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible... member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services." Nowhere is it required that such clinics be in WA member states and therefore subject to the provisions of this resolution - including Article 6's provisions against medical professionals coercing eligible patients to "seek, rec[ei]ve or undergo assisted suicide" - or any other resolution (especially about medical ethics).

The fact that member states, not affected eligible patients or their families, "must arrange... travel" to such a clinic effectively allows them to indirectly ignore this resolution for such patients (although I can completely understand why member states should pay for such travel).

The latter conclusion, about indirect ignoring, is unsupported by the warrants. If I told you that you need to get drafted or hire a substitute and you hire a substitute, that isn't breaking the law, it is complying with it.

The former portion could be resolved easily by adding in something like "member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to a clinic within WA jurisdiction... [cont]". Even so, the idea that nations might have to pay for travel to a clinic that doesn't follow the definition for assisted suicide isn't supportable by the text. A clinic offering "assisted suicide" which is not consistent with the definition is not offering "assisted suicide".

Dangerous definitions abound, episode 1:

Article 1's full definition of assisted suicide is "the ending of the life of a sapient patient, where a medical professional assists in the procedure, and the procedure is fast, and free from extreme pain or agony inflicted on the recipient." A doctor-manned guillotine provides a fast, pain-free and medical-professional-assisted way to end a sapient patient's life - yet it is not what most people would consider to be assisted suicide.

Consider HR#164 "Individual Self-Determination," whose Article 7 demanded that "Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted." Its repeal, HR#221, made an excellent point when it argued that said Article "only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively)."

You do - at least - save prospective repeal authors from having to do some of The Sacred Orb and Cristia Agape's legwork by requiring merely that assisted suicide procedures meet just two of the criteria laid out by HR#164: namely "fast, and free from extreme pain or agony [for] the recipient."

This "concern" entirely lacks any meaningful impact. There are two actual issues at hand. The point you raise relates to whether something is "what most people would consider to be assisted suicide" and has no utilitarian impacts. Yet the actual meaningful point is one related to consent. Insofar as a person seeking assisted suicide has a meaningful and informed consent to the procedure, I don't really see a problem.

You might make some histrionic objections saying that people might end up being killed by guillotines. If that's the case, then the person who chose assisted suicide made that choice. One of the corollaries is that this is the least painful method available; otherwise someone would have chosen a less painful method.

Dangerous definitions abound, episode 2:

Article 2a requires that an eligible patient have "an incurable medical condition... that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question." By this metric, a prominent professional footballer with few formal qualifications who's had an amputated leg, can't find anything above an entry-level job, and feels as though the reduced wages and lack of potential career progression would "drastically and permanently reduce their quality of life" is an eligible patient. In fact, absolutely no vetting is required, not even by your personal doctor or those closest to you - just say that your "incurable medical condition... drastically and permanently reduces [your] quality of life" and you're well on the way to becoming eligible for assisted suicide, free of charge.

This objection too is very strange. At present, people who you are suggesting are in fact suicidal have the clear capacity to do that regardless. They could purchase a weapon and self-inflict life-threatening injury. The actual comparative is between the status quo, where in member nations without assisted suicide people die possibly in agony, and one where those harms don't occur.

But your response seems to ignore this and pretend that the resolution would somehow create this enormous fiscal burden of having to pay for all these people who would suddenly all want to kill themselves because doing so is now free at the point of service. It is a frankly ridiculous and somewhat insulting idea.

The implied suggestion in this objection too is one that would rob the resolution of all of its strength. Requiring that a member nation regulatory body interpret determine whether someone's claim is eligible has the exact same actual effect of just making it illegal again: some Dhristian Cemocrats are probably not going to find permanent suffering with drastic and permanent reductions in quality of life no matter what pleading is made.

[Apatosaurus]

You might make some histrionic objections saying that people might end up being killed by guillotines. If that's the case, then the person who chose assisted suicide made that choice. One of the corollaries is that this is the least painful method available; otherwise someone would have chosen a less painful method.

Agreed, especially as people getting killed by guillotines means that those people directly said that getting killed by a guillotine is okay (The recipient has provided verifiable, informed consent ... to the procedure and method thereof)

[Apatosaurus]

Made new changes:

1. Updated preamble,
2. Fixed Section 2c to make it less verbose,
3. Clarified Section 3 so that the clinics to which people can be taken must be within WA jurisdiction, and
4. Added 4b for further non-discrimination.

[Apatosaurus]

Added Section 8 to clarify on advance directives:

This august body clarifies that consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1.a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for recieving assisted suicide shall still count as consent for the purposes of 1.a.iv and 1.b, but assisted suicide still may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1.a are met, and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to recieve assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.

What are people's thoughts?

[WayNeacTia]

Added Section 8 to clarify on advance directives:

This august body clarifies that consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1.a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for recieving assisted suicide shall still count as consent for the purposes of 1.a.iv and 1.b, but assisted suicide still may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1.a are met, and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to recieve assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.

What are people's thoughts?

It remains completely illegal as long as #285 remains in place, which you have been told over and over. Perhaps repeal that first, and people may decide to give you some actual feedback.

[Apatosaurus]

Thanks for the free bump Wayne. :)

EDIT: When you complain about me asking for feedback, by generating free clicks and views!

[WayNeacTia]

Thanks for the free bump Wayne.

EDIT: When you complain about me asking for feedback, by generating free clicks and views!

An unearned smug attitude, free views and bumps aren’t going to make this any more legal until 285 is repealed, no matter how much shitposting you do in the drafting thread. Maybe you should try to keep that in mind before you decide to make smartass comments?

[Apatosaurus]

Thanks for the free bump Wayne. :)

EDIT: When you complain about me asking for feedback, by generating free clicks and views!

An unearned smug attitude, free views and bumps aren’t going to make this any more legal until 285 is repealed, no matter how much shitposting you do in the drafting thread. Maybe you should try to keep that in mind before you decide to make smartass comments?

It may not become more legal, but it can become higher quality, which in my opinion (not sure about yours though) is a good thing for when it does become legal.

[WayNeacTia]

An unearned smug attitude, free views and bumps aren’t going to make this any more legal until 285 is repealed, no matter how much shitposting you do in the drafting thread. Maybe you should try to keep that in mind before you decide to make smartass comments?

It may not become more legal, but it can become higher quality, which in my opinion (not sure about yours though) is a good thing for when it does become legal.

Except no one gives a shit until 285 is repealed, as this will go nowhere until then. So..... I do believe the time has come to either shit or get off the pot my man.

[Apatosaurus]

Except no one gives a shit until 285 is repealed, as this will go nowhere until then.

You are clearly giving enough shits to comment on this thread to complain about me asking for feedback while generating free clicks, views and bumps.

[Astrobolt]

It may not become more legal, but it can become higher quality, which in my opinion (not sure about yours though) is a good thing for when it does become legal.

Except no one gives a shit until 285 is repealed, as this will go nowhere until then. So..... I do believe the time has come to either shit or get off the pot my man.

OOC: Maybe just maybe, there is value into making sure this proposal is as good as it can be before repealing 285.

[Wallenburg]

It may not become more legal, but it can become higher quality, which in my opinion (not sure about yours though) is a good thing for when it does become legal.

Except no one gives a shit until 285 is repealed, as this will go nowhere until then. So..... I do believe the time has come to either shit or get off the pot my man.

We all know you'd be just as snide if a repeal was put forward without a replacement prepared. You are providing nothing of value to this drafting thread.

[Unibot III]

Marguerite rose to address the General Assembly during a morning lull and tossed her cigarette bud at the head of an unsuspecting general: "Venerable colleagues and peoples of the world assembled, I have arranged to share my time today with an honourary member of our delegation," she said.

Eduard Heir entered the General Assembly chamber, gaunt and visibly disheveled.

It was a sleepy Christmas session for the General Assembly, not the full attendance he had imagined, shame, but he was grateful to attend regardless. With great difficulty he made his way to the Unibotian section, assisted by legs braces and his former aides, Percy and Kuno Krugner who helped shoulder him. To the few (and increasingly rare) veteran ambassadors who remembered him from sessions past, Heir was virtually unrecognizable - his face hollow, eyes sunken, and mouth agape.

He read slowly from his notes to the Assembly in a thin voice.

"I must first apologize to the floor for reading from prepared notes against the customs of this chamber, but I trust you will forgive me," said Eduard, putting a pair of reading glasses on, and quipping "-my eyesight used to be better too!"

"I had asked to speak today in favour of the following resolution and the proposed repeal, but alas it will not be possible for me to attend both sessions, so my remarks today will have to serve as a defence of both efforts," prefaced Eduard. "Many of you have been aware of my mental and physical decline for some time, although few were aware of the extent to the challenges that I have faced since my departure from public life in 2014. For the past twelve years, I have been living with the knowledge that I had a progressive and atypical case of frontotemporal dementia, unresponsive to treatment - initially misdiagnosed as Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. My diagnosis remains not well understood, but my prognosis is clear and damning."

"The legislation tabled before us is often confused as a recognition simply of a right to autonomy, a right to dignity, a right to die, et cetera," said Eduard, "but I am here to urge the World Assembly to pass this bill and repeal GA#285 to preserve our right to live. People are diagnosed everyday with terrible news that they will eventually lose significant cognitive or motor functions. Assisted suicide and advanced directives enables us to live out the remaining years of our life, knowing that we do not have to prematurely take our lives into our own hands before we cannot do so without assistance."

"If a kind Kennyite representative had not intervened to thwart an attempted suicide many moons ago, I would not be available to speak to you today," said Eduard tearfully, "and indeed I would not have had the opportunity to draft and pass legislation to decriminalize suicide, improve conditions in psychiatric institutions, better global access to education, and ensure the working independence of the World Assembly's two chambers - causes that were close to my heart and inspired by my lived experience. The World Assembly, this great and august body of ours, imbued purpose in me that was previously missing in my life, and I, in turn, gave voice to its spirit of humanitarianism. Too often authors get swept up in the fascination with passing as many votes as they can that they neglect the opportunity this chamber presents us all to make a positive difference in the world. You have chance with these resolutions to seize that opportunity."

After a few coughs, Eduard composed himself and continued to read on...

"GA#285, the original resolution, is a cowardly thing, a conscious vandalization of the World Assembly," said Eduard, his voice fading, but his passion growing. "It's premised on wishful thinking, cruel naïveté, cognitive and moral dissonance, and a profound invasion of national sovereignty that falsely presents itself as autonomist. 'Maybe medicine will advance,' trumpets the fool. 'Maybe this is all a part of a greater plan,' says the dumb. 'If you want to do it, you can go die in a foreign country,' chides the cruel. 'People aren't already taking their lives prematurely,' says the willfully blind."

"Clause Four of GA#285 effectively limits access to assisted suicide in poor, developing countries that are dependent on the WHA for healthcare transfers. The author morally brushes this aside by offering an expensive solution to poor, sick people: fly to a rich liberal country. I know this tragic story all too well, as a long-time resident of this very international territory, having also been denied assisted suicide myself..."

"Clause Six of GA#285 compels the World Assembly to count how people access assisted suicide, but no one is enumerating how many people kill themselves every year in nations that ban assisted suicide to take control of their situation before their ALS sets in, or their Parkinson's, or their Alzheimer's. We all know people affected by chronic pain and illness, and it is high time our laws, domestic and international, reckon with their realities without self-delusion," said Eduard.

Eduard rose from his chair with help from his colleagues: "I want to thank the delegations from Apatosaurus and Imperium Anglorum for taking this initiative on, and lend my wholehearted support to the passage of this replacement and the proposed repeal as written. It is important work that you should be proud of and it brings honour to your countries and to the World Assembly at large. I have urged my home country - without response, I should add - to rejoin the World Assembly so it can cast a vote in favour."

Heir made his way to the chamber's backdoor, thanking Kuno for flying in from Unibot on such short notice to join him ("I wouldn't miss today for anything, Eddy," said Kuno), and turned slowly to take a final look at an assembly that he knew in his heart that he would never again see with his own eyes.

[WayNeacTia]

Except no one gives a shit until 285 is repealed, as this will go nowhere until then. So..... I do believe the time has come to either shit or get off the pot my man.

We all know you'd be just as snide if a repeal was put forward without a replacement prepared. You are providing nothing of value to this drafting thread.

Well it has come to my attention that you need some competition. Now I couldn't hope to compete on your level, but I am up for a challenge.........

[Apatosaurus]

We all know you'd be just as snide if a repeal was put forward without a replacement prepared. You are providing nothing of value to this drafting thread.

Well it has come to my attention that you need some competition. Now I couldn't hope to compete on your level, but I am up for a challenge.........

Can I compete with you too? ;)

[Thousand Branches]

EDITS!!!

Resolution-wide edits: Please spell receive correctly, it is not spelled "recieve" (just go ctrl-f for "reciev" and you should pull up all instances of "recieve" and "recieving").

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

I don't think "resolving" is the word you were looking for. If anything it would be "resolved" and in that case, "convinced" would be a far better alternative.

"have" --> "possess"

Thinking that denying this right to individuals will only cause individuals needless suffering and agony,

"Thinking" is a very gross word. Perhaps "confident"?

First "individuals" --> "such individuals"

"only cause individuals" --> "only cause them"

Nix "and agony".

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

Wdym "supposed dangers"??? They're literally dying... that's the epitome of "danger". I'm genuinely curious as to what this could possibly be referring to?

"that" --> "that the"

Concluding that this august body should formally mandate that all member-nations legalise assisted suicide,

Delete this, it's utterly unnecessary and kills the flow, you've clearly and obviously already stated the purpose of this legislation.


COMPLETE REWRITE FOR THIS WHOLE SECTION:

1. Defining, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. “assisted suicide” as practicing humane euthanasia on an individual, where:
      
      1. the procedure is performed by a medical professional trained in euthanasia,
      2. the procedure is quick, painless, and private,
      3. the recipient possesses an incurable medical condition that causes them permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question, and
      4. the recipient has, of their own free will, provided verifiable and informed consent to the procedure and method thereof; this consent may be withdrawn by the individual in question at any time,
   2. "eligible patient" as a legally consenting individual eligible to receive assisted suicide,

For the record, I deleted the definition for "member state" because that has never, at any time in the history of the WA, needed to exist as a definition. I deleted the definition for "locally accessible" because it is unnecessary and used literally twice throughout the entire resolution (not to mention mildly confusing).

Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction seeking assisted suicide. In areas where assisted suicide services are otherwise not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to the nearest clinic within WA jurisdiction that provides assisted suicide services.

What is "their jurisdiction"? This isn't explained anywhere afaik? (If it is lmk, I could just be stupid)

Delete "otherwise".

No member nation may discriminate against persons recieving or seeking assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, or heirs of assisted suicide recipients (referred to as "said persons" within this clause), in ways including but not limited to:

Gonna go ahead and do a rewrite here:

"No member nation may discriminate against any persons receiving, seeking, administering, or otherwise facilitating euthanasia, as well as any heirs of euthanasia recipients, in ways including but not limited to:"

Reads a little better, and the "said persons" bit is not necessary, that should be clear enough.

discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them, or

failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.

Okay I feel like this is really specific? The only two sorts of discrimination that are protected against are through tax and law, not just regular discrimination? Also does this tax thing exist for an irl reason? is there some precedent for that somewhere? The law one as well tbh, I'd be curious to see the sources or reasoning behind these.

Member nations may not prosecute persons 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 using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed. Member nations also may not treat the heirs of an assisted suicide recipient different from the heirs of a person who died a natural death.

Receive spelling.

I don't see why this couldn't be included in the list, this literally begins almost exactly the same way and seems like an easy list item. These are still forms of discrimination imo.

No person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure or require an individual to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide.

receive spelling.

"require" --> "coerce" perhaps?

"receive" and "undergo" would be the same thing yes?

No member nation may implement any policy which has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide unless that member nation shows that the restriction furthers a clearly stated, compelling, and practical state interest with narrowly tailored and least restrictive means.

"any policy which" --> "any policy that"

Also I'm gonna be totally honest, I have no idea what this clause is saying. Honestly have no clue.

A medical professional that publicly communicates a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide in advance, may not be required to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily, readily and locally accessible assisted suicide services.

Remove commas around "may not... suicide".

"in advance" of what?

Oxford comma after "readily"

Consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1.a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for recieving assisted suicide shall still count as consent for the purposes of 1.a.iv and 1.b, but assisted suicide still may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1.a are met, and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to recieve assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.

I have no idea what this means.

Edits done, hope they were helpful. Have a great day!

-A

[Apatosaurus]

EDITS!!!

Resolution-wide edits: Please spell receive correctly, it is not spelled "recieve" (just go ctrl-f for "reciev" and you should pull up all instances of "recieve" and "recieving").

Done, for some reason I'm used to misspelling it as "recieve".

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

I don't think "resolving" is the word you were looking for. If anything it would be "resolved" and in that case, "convinced" would be a far better alternative.

"have" --> "possess"

All done.

Thinking that denying this right to individuals will only cause individuals needless suffering and agony,

"Thinking" is a very gross word. Perhaps "confident"?

First "individuals" --> "such individuals"

"only cause individuals" --> "only cause them"

Nix "and agony".

Also done.

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

Wdym "supposed dangers"??? They're literally dying... that's the epitome of "danger". I'm genuinely curious as to what this could possibly be referring to?

Largely slippery slope arguments that are generally not grounded in reality, such as that legalising assisted suicide will then cause involuntary euthanasia to be legalised (despite Clause 5 of this proposal explicitly stating that it is illegal to require a person to recieve assisted suicide lol), or all sorts of other conservative whataboutisms.

"that" --> "that the"

Concluding that this august body should formally mandate that all member-nations legalise assisted suicide,

Delete this, it's utterly unnecessary and kills the flow, you've clearly and obviously already stated the purpose of this legislation.

All done.


COMPLETE REWRITE FOR THIS WHOLE SECTION:

1. Defining, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. “assisted suicide” as practicing humane euthanasia on an individual, where:
      
      1. the procedure is performed by a medical professional trained in euthanasia,
      2. the procedure is quick, painless, and private,
      3. the recipient possesses an incurable medical condition that causes them permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces their quality of life as determined by the individual in question, and
      4. the recipient has, of their own free will, provided verifiable and informed consent to the procedure and method thereof; this consent may be withdrawn by the individual in question at any time,
   2. "eligible patient" as a legally consenting individual eligible to receive assisted suicide,

For the record, I deleted the definition for "member state" because that has never, at any time in the history of the WA, needed to exist as a definition. I deleted the definition for "locally accessible" because it is unnecessary and used literally twice throughout the entire resolution (not to mention mildly confusing).

Accepted what I like from this, thanks :P

Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction seeking assisted suicide. In areas where assisted suicide services are otherwise not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to the nearest clinic within WA jurisdiction that provides assisted suicide services.

What is "their jurisdiction"? This isn't explained anywhere afaik? (If it is lmk, I could just be stupid)

Meant the jurisdiction of the member state in question. Not sure why this needs to be explained?

Delete "otherwise".

No member nation may discriminate against persons recieving or seeking assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, or heirs of

assisted suicide recipients (referred to as "said persons" within this clause), in ways including but not limited to:

Gonna go ahead and do a rewrite here:

"No member nation may discriminate against any persons receiving, seeking, administering, or otherwise facilitating euthanasia, as well as any heirs of euthanasia recipients, in ways including but not limited to:"

Reads a little better, and the "said persons" bit is not necessary, that should be clear enough.

Done.

Will address the rest of this when I have time, which is not now. :P

[Apatosaurus]

discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them, or

failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.

Okay I feel like this is really specific? The only two sorts of discrimination that are protected against are through tax and law, not just regular discrimination? Also does this tax thing exist for an irl reason? is there some precedent for that somewhere? The law one as well tbh, I'd be curious to see the sources or reasoning behind these.

It's not. There is precedent in the GA for prohibiting tax discrimination, law discrimination and prosecution, as well as withholding inheritance. The wording "including but not limited to" is also necessary to make it clear that those situations are not the only prohibited forms of discrimination.

Member nations may not prosecute persons 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 using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed. Member nations also may not treat the heirs of an assisted suicide recipient different from the heirs of a person who died a natural death.

Receive spelling.

I don't see why this couldn't be included in the list, this literally begins almost exactly the same way and seems like an easy list item. These are still forms of discrimination imo.

True, added it.

No person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure or require an individual to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide.

receive spelling.

"require" --> "coerce" perhaps?

No, the "require" wording is there for a reason, i.e. to double clarify that non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is bad, if it isn't already obvious.

"receive" and "undergo" would be the same thing yes?

Fixed.

No member nation may implement any policy which has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide unless that member nation shows that the restriction furthers a clearly stated, compelling, and practical state interest with narrowly tailored and least restrictive means.

"any policy which" --> "any policy that"

Done.

Also I'm gonna be totally honest, I have no idea what this clause is saying. Honestly have no clue.

The point is to prohibit member nations from creating policies designed to restrict access to youth in asia. I've reworded it to make it clearer, however.

A medical professional that publicly communicates a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide in advance, may not be required to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily, readily and locally accessible assisted suicide services.

Remove commas around "may not... suicide".

Done.

"in advance" of what?

In advance of them otherwise having to provide assisted suicide. I agree that it's confusing though, so I put "has" in front of "professional that" and got rid of "in advance".

Oxford comma after "readily"

Done.

Consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1.a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for recieving assisted suicide shall still count as consent for the purposes of 1.a.iv and 1.b, but assisted suicide still may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1.a are met, and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to recieve assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.

I have no idea what this means.

I'll try a reword then.

[Xanthorrhoea]

The World Assembly,

Appalled at the lack of humour in language,

Convinced that we can have more fun,

Hereby:

Mandates that the word “euthanasia” be replaced with the phrase “youth in Asia,” as this is so much cooler.

[Apatosaurus]

The World Assembly,

Appalled at the lack of humour in language,

Convinced that we can have more fun,

Hereby:

Mandates that the word “euthanasia” be replaced with the phrase “youth in Asia,” as this is so much cooler.

You should submit this if joke proposals weren't illegal in the GA ngl

[Apatosaurus]

Seeing as IA submitted the repeal, this is now on Last Call.