PASSED: Dignified End-of-Life Choices

[Studly Penguins]

Human Rights"/"Significant

UNSETTLED by the number of terminally ill persons with no dignified and legal means to choose to end their needless pain and suffering;

MANDATING all WA Nations allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.

ESTABLISHING the WA Commission on Human Rights to arbitrate any and all disputes concerning the implementation of this legislation.

1. Definitions:
a) “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will produce death;
b) “Attending physician” means the health care provider who has primary responsibility for the care and treatment of the patient;
c) “Consulting physician” means a health care provider who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis;
d) “Adult” means a person who has reached his or her nation’s age of majority.

2. The patient seeking to end to his/her own unbearable suffering through legally prescribed lethal drugs must be an Adult suffering from terminal illness. The patient must also be mentally competent and able to make and communicate Health-Care decisions to their doctors or through a provision in a patient's Living Will. Patient must also:

a) Make two oral requests not less than 5 days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;
b) Execute a written request for such medication in the presence of two witnesses who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, of sound mind, and acting under free will. No witness shall be a blood relative or one who stands to gain from said patients’ death.

3) Prior to legally prescribing lethal medication, the Attending and Consulting Physician must confirm the diagnosis and verify that the patient's request is voluntary. Physicians must also perform the following:

a) Inform and document on three occasions to the patient his/her diagnosis, prognosis, risks/effects of the lethal medication, pain management, experimental treatment options and patient’s right to rescind their lethal medication request anytime.
b) Immediately prior to administering such drug(s), either Physician must verify and document that the patient is making an informed and voluntary decision.

4. Additional provisions:

a) A patient may rescind a request for lethal medication at any time. When numerous requests are made and then rescinded; an immediate psychiatric consultation is to be ordered.
b) No person shall be subject to any penalty, including civil or criminal liability or professional discipline for participating in good faith compliance with this resolution.
c) A person that willfully seeks to cause a patient’s death without full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties.
d) This Act is to ensure a dignified end to suffering; it CANNOT and SHALL NOT be used as an excuse to remove undesirable people.
e) A physician has the right to refuse to take part in an assisted death WITHOUT any penalties whatsoever being levied against her/him for this sole reason.

5. This resolution shall not preclude a nation from enacting an assisted suicide law that is less restrictive than this resolution, so long as said law complies with Sections 4 (d) and 4 (e).

Co-author: Robert Hawkins


Here we go ya'll. This is now open to complete and full debate!! Dont be shy now; so have at it!

[Absolvability]

I love this proposal. The Rogue Nation already allows its terminally-ill patients this last convenience and we believe it would be an excellent addition to rights granted internationally.

Off the bat, I can't say as I see anything wrong with it, though I'll obviously wait and see what others have to point out.

More as a topic for discussion, rather than a suggestion just yet, what of people who are not mentally capable (according to this proposal,) of making such a decision for themselves? Many illnesses that would fall into this category effect mind and body and, provided there is some pre-existing will or something that states their desire to end their suffering should such an unfortunate thing happen, I believe they should be entitled to a dignified death as well.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm also exceedingly happy this very fine piece of legislation has found its way back into debate in these halls. It's simply superb, and a marked improvement on the already excellent Robert Hawkins's original proposal.

We'd like to see some minor additions, but my Secretariat informs me the text is at 3.479 characters, dangerously close to the 3.500 limit, so I'm happy to support the draft as it is.

Yours Very Truly,

[Grand Europic States]

Good luck with this, you're gonna have a hard time getting support for it.

At the moment I can spot several problems with the draft.

allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.

By the time that a terminally ill person only has six months left, they may not be able to self-administer. Remember, many terminally ill people have undergone treatment that has awful side effects. I would recommend changing this to allow licensed medical professionals to administer, I would also suggest allowing those close to the patient to be able to administer because often the patient may want to end it in a place that is special to them with only close friends and family present. Obviously, in both cases all other legalities, such as the requirement for the documented evidence and the agreement of two other doctors, would still apply.

a) “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months;

I have a problem with the six month bit. Patients with terminal illnesses that affect their memory and sanity would often be unable to use this proposal because by the time they only had six months left the illness would have had such an effect as to render them not sound of mind. One of the most common reasons for a patient to want to end their lives is that they don't want to have an undignified end where they don't even recognise their spouse or children. I think you should drop the six month requirement and let all terminally ill patients end their lives whenever it suits them.

I hope this proposal does succeed, but I somehow doubt it will. Good luck with it anyway though.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

An excellent point brought up by Ambassador Wintour, I believe. Not only would it most definately be more efficient for a Doctor to administer the necessary drugs, but it might be all but impossible for the patient, in some instances, to do it themselves.

[Aegara]

I wholeheartedly agree with you proposal, however the questions raised above seem to be pressing and vaild. Many terminal illnesses render those affected by them not "sound of mind" by the time that it has progressed to withing six months of death. I suggest that those who have undergone a thorough mental assessment before the six months limit and pass should be allowed to proceed with action.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, absolutely not. The Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes rejects any attempt to legislate on physician-assisted suicide. To quote myself the last time this proposal was on the floor (under the name 'Euthanasia Act'):

"...[It] is my opinion that the World Assembly is not the proper venue to decide euthanasia, or assisted suicide legislation. It is a hot-button issue for many different reasons unique to each nation. In Glen-Rhodes, legislation has been repeatedly struck down based on existing ethical guidelines in medicine, but there are also moral and religious beliefs to take in to account. Would this practice not be denying religious states their right to self-determination? I am no opponent of the proliferation of democracy ... but this is an international congress that is blind of ideologies, not a unilateral democratic freeway. We must take in to account what many deem the central creed of their religion: the value of life.

Therefore, I am opposed to this resolution not simply because I cannot fit assisted suicide in to my ethical beliefs, but because the issue so complex and dependent on the unique circumstances of each nation, and as such should not be legislated on the international level."

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[SilentScope4]

I am against this proposal on the grounds that it is only "BESEECHING" people to legalize euthanisa. It is not forcing nations to do anything, it is merely making a statement saying, "Look, legalize euthanisa and follow these guidelines, but if you don't want to do it, no problem!" To beseech is to "request earnestly", and nations can deny requests rather easily.

Gah, the WA regulars would have pointed that out before.

If you changed it to mandate, then I would be against on national soverignity grounds, but at least the resolution would have done something. As it stands, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

EDIT:

The patient must also be mentally competent and possess the ability to make and communicate Health-Care decisions to their doctors.

In many cultures, anyone who wants to let themselves die must be mentally incompetent. So, well, you might want to fix this loophole.

[Tanaara]

As it is well known I am not a WA member, and never will be, but I must commend Studly Penguins for a very well written proposal.

I rarely say this but "Bravo! Bravo!"

[Absolvability]

In many cultures, anyone who wants to let themselves die must be mentally incompetent. So, well, you might want to fix this loophole.

It's hard to call that a loophole when the resolution doesn't mandate making euthenasia legal. A nation that decides to keep it illegal can use whatever weird Catch-22 reasoning they like. Somebody who knows they are crazy can't be crazy. Somebody who wants to die is mentally incompetent and therefore can not make the decision to die.

If you changed it to mandate, then I would be against on national soverignity grounds, but at least the resolution would have done something. As it stands, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

See, I disagree. It seems that this Assembly is only willing to engage matters of a clearly black or white nature. Nobody wants to admit anything is gray. Nobody wants to admit that sometimes the answer isn't to prohibit or proliferate... sometimes it is just to regulate. To manage things humanely, and in moderation. This is not fence-sitting, Ambassadors, this is wisdom.

"...[It] is my opinion that the World Assembly is not the proper venue to decide euthanasia, or assisted suicide legislation. It is a hot-button issue for many different reasons unique to each nation.

Euthenasia is not mandated to be legal in all nations by this proposal.

Would this practice not be denying religious states their right to self-determination?

Should religion have any say in matters such as this? We're discussing morality. Morality is universal. If religion were ever an accurate description of morality I suspect there wouldn't be so damned many of them.

We must take in to account what many deem the central creed of their religion: the value of life.

If we were discussing anything other than "life" we'd all agree that quality is more important than quantity. However, when something is sad compassion and religion come flying in and reasoning goes right out the window. If the person does not find their life to be of further value then no other person on Earth or in Heaven should have a damned thing to say about it.

[Studly Penguins]

I love this proposal. The Rogue Nation already allows its terminally-ill patients this last convenience and we believe it would be an excellent addition to rights granted internationally.

Off the bat, I can't say as I see anything wrong with it, though I'll obviously wait and see what others have to point out.

More as a topic for discussion, rather than a suggestion just yet, what of people who are not mentally capable (according to this proposal,) of making such a decision for themselves? Many illnesses that would fall into this category effect mind and body and, provided there is some pre-existing will or something that states their desire to end their suffering should such an unfortunate thing happen, I believe they should be entitled to a dignified death as well.

Very good point there. I do agree that those who in their Nations are considered "mentally capable" deserve coverage too. Any thoughts on how we should or could work this in??

[Studly Penguins]

Good luck with this, you're gonna have a hard time getting support for it.

At the moment I can spot several problems with the draft.

allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.

By the time that a terminally ill person only has six months left, they may not be able to self-administer. Remember, many terminally ill people have undergone treatment that has awful side effects. I would recommend changing this to allow licensed medical professionals to administer, I would also suggest allowing those close to the patient to be able to administer because often the patient may want to end it in a place that is special to them with only close friends and family present. Obviously, in both cases all other legalities, such as the requirement for the documented evidence and the agreement of two other doctors, would still apply.

a) “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months;

I have a problem with the six month bit. Patients with terminal illnesses that affect their memory and sanity would often be unable to use this proposal because by the time they only had six months left the illness would have had such an effect as to render them not sound of mind. One of the most common reasons for a patient to want to end their lives is that they don't want to have an undignified end where they don't even recognise their spouse or children. I think you should drop the six month requirement and let all terminally ill patients end their lives whenever it suits them.

I hope this proposal does succeed, but I somehow doubt it will. Good luck with it anyway though.

Yours,

All good points. Edits will be made.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Should religion have any say in matters such as this? We're discussing morality. Morality is universal. If religion were ever an accurate description of morality I suspect there wouldn't be so damned many of them.

We don't get to decide whether or not religion has a say, Ambassador. It does, whether you or I like it, or not. I won't argue to the origins or ethics or why religion is important to the formation of morals, largely because I do not wish to filibuster this legislation again. That, and I do not think that anything good can come out of that argument with you. So, I will simply say the following. If you ask me if I think religion should be considered in the greater scheme of government, I would most likely give a resounding "no". But, if you ask me if I think religion should be considered when formulating euthanasia legislation, I would have to reluctantly say "yes". Whenever you are dealing with a life-or-death situation, religion does and maybe should play a considerable role.

I will be reading over this proposal during the drafting process, but I do not have the will nor want to participate in the debate... which may be a clear sign that the debate will be relatively smooth. Should the proposal stray and mandate the practice of euthanasia as completely legal, I might be compelled to fight against it. I recall the author mentioning in the last draft of this that the proposal sought to set standards for euthanasia. I believe that to be a far more agreeable route. Where euthanasia is expressly illegal, it will remain so. Where it is allowed, whether by law or absence of law, then the proposal would rightfully set the appropriate standards.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Biteme]

Human Rights"/"Significant

Dignified End-of-Life Choices

To the People of this Body Assembled:

UNSETTLED by the number of people with terminal illness with no dignified and legal means to choose to end their needless pain and suffering;

Define a 'dignified' death in a way people will generally accept. What kind of pain and suffering is 'needless' and what other kind of pain and suffering is there? Leaving such blatant and intentionally vague generalities, you may as well just issue licenses for abuse. I know people will jump on me for bringing real life into the discussion, but experience has proven, without exception (do some research; don't take my word for it), that such policies end up leading to abuses and cause shifts from a mentality of saving patients and doing no harm to a more utilitarian paradigm. Insurance companies will increasingly refuse to fund care to someone who they determine are 'needlessly' suffering and should have a 'dignified' death. No, such a proposal has nothing positive about it and I will certainly vote against it, should it make it that far.

[Kevorkania]

Yes!! The government of Kevorkania will gladly endorse such a proposal. Our euthanasia R&D programs have suffered because of a lack of test subjects. This will help with that and allow our death-dealing technologies to bring dignified death to thousands, as such a proposal will undoubtedly open new markets around the world! To die with dignity is not a right but a responsibility.

[Grand Europic States]

Define a 'dignified' death in a way people will generally accept.

Not screaming at your children or grandchildren because you cannot remember who they are anymore, not loosing more and more control over your own body, not loosing so much of your mind that you are no longer a person that your loved ones recognise... I could go on.

It's not a particularly nice subject, no one's pretending it is. However, people should be able to make such decisions themselves, and the state should not prevent them from doing so because of other people's beliefs, and particularly not because of lobbying by self-appointed 'moral police' with their own agenda, i.e. religious people.

such policies end up leading to abuses and cause shifts from a mentality of saving patients and doing no harm to a more utilitarian paradigm. Insurance companies will increasingly refuse to fund care to someone who they determine are 'needlessly' suffering and should have a 'dignified' death. No, such a proposal has nothing positive about it and I will certainly vote against it, should it make it that far.

Yet another use of the argument that because a right could be abused it should not be granted in the first place. Some commit voting fraud, we don't ban democracy. Others steal property, we don't deny the right of ownership. IMO that's just not a good enough argument. Yes such things may happen, so you legislate and prosecute to prevent them from happening in the first place and trying to stop them happening again.

(OOC: I can't comment on health insurance because I'm lucky enough to live in a country where healthcare is free for all. But as I said above, if such things happen you deal with them rather than just banning the particular right altogether. I don't know how health insurance works, but I doubt it would be hard to require insurance providers to provide further treatment if the patient wanted it.)

Yours,

[Absolvability]

So, I will simply say the following. If you ask me if I think religion should be considered in the greater scheme of government, I would most likely give a resounding "no". But, if you ask me if I think religion should be considered when formulating euthanasia legislation, I would have to reluctantly say "yes".

I'd be more than welcome to consider religion in such matters if there weren't so many religions. Which religion should we consider, Doctor? Perhaps Christianity... which holds life to be sacred, yet cleansed the earth at Saddam and Gamorrah. The very same God who asked Abraham to kill his son. The same God who flooded the earth. Clearly life is not so sacred. And why should it be, if we believe in an afterlife?

Or perhaps God may do as he wishes because he has some master plan, controls everything, and knows everything. This very concept implies a degree of predestination that renders this very conversation moot. Suicide is obviously not a sin if it is preordained by God.

So which of these awkward contradictions should we consider? Religion serves a great purpose. What it does not do is accurately describe morals. It certainly tries... but, as I've said, morals are universal and there are far too many varying religions for any of them (beyond being preposterously pretentious, which many of them are,) to claim to be correct.

So no, I don't think religion should have much say in what we do here. Religious people may cast their vote, obviously, but it is not a reasonable cause to dismiss the issue.

Consider, Doctor, that by many prevalent religions we would not allow gay marriage. We would not allow divorce. We would not allow abortion or capital punishment. I think, regardless of religion, we can agree that the first two examples are good ways in which we've partially forsaken religious teachings. The second two, quite possibly, are bad ways.

Now one would obviously liken suicide (in the context of this proposal, mind you,) more to abortion or capital punishment than to gay marriage or divorce. Does that mean it is bad? Is it always bad when somebody dies? When they WANT to die? Personally I believe that (notwithstanding the specifics laid down in this proposal,) people who commit suicide are short-sighted and selfish. HOWEVER... if we can't decide what to do with our own bodies, what freedoms do we really have? Perhaps this is an abstract concept. The "right to die." But is saying we don't WANT something to say that it is WRONG? Do we have an accurate enough description of God's will to let religious views decide our freedoms?

But, if you ask me if I think religion should be considered when formulating euthanasia legislation, I would have to reluctantly say "yes".

I think whether or not we consider religion when formulating legislation, in general, should have nothing at all to do with how interesting religion finds the particular subject.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The very reason you are opposed to considering religions is the very reason I am opposed to legislating on this subject: there are too many of them to consider, on an international level. Leave it up to the separate nations to decide if assisted suicide is legal or illegal. Whether or not Glen-Rhodes allows assisted suicide isn't, and shouldn't, be of any concern to Absolvability. If we're tricking expats from Absolvability to sign assisted suicide requests, then there would be concern. In that respect, I'm open to regulating 'death with dignity' where it is already legal.

In addendum, I'm not advocating the consideration of religion whenever the establishment decides to assert itself. I think we are able to judge when religion plays an important factor, and that it when the people themselves have asserted it as an important factor.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Absolvability]

In addendum, I'm not advocating the consideration of religion whenever the establishment decides to assert itself. I think we are able to judge when religion plays an important factor, and that it when the people themselves have asserted it as an important factor.

Yes. And when an individual decides that religion is no longer so important to them that they wish to continue suffering mentally or physically, but would rather expediate an otherwise equally innevitable end, then they have asserted that it is not an important factor. It should indeed be the peoples' decision. Which is what this proposal intends to grant them, though for now the national sovereignty arguement has been anticipated and appeased to render it a beseeching rather than a mandate. On a personal note though, I do not see how we can expect the 'people' to make a decision when we, as legislators, won't even make it legal for them to do so.

My point, really, is that while religion should have some say... in the end, a person chooses their religion. And so, whether because there are so many religions, or because some might not like any of them, the law should not be tied to it. Why involve religion when it seems obvious to me that someone of strong faith will not opt for euthenasia and others will? Problem solved, it would seem.

Leave it up to the separate nations to decide if assisted suicide is legal or illegal.

The proposal does. That is not WHY I support it, but I support it never-the-less.

[Tiesabre]

The Free Land of Tiesabre will never support such a radical, immoral and insane resolution such as this! We as the WA have no right to condone such a crazed actions.

You do not and will never have support from the Free Land of Tiesabre! I shall also recommend the WA delegate of my region, The New Inquisition, to not support this resolution or any like it

[Absolvability]

Really, good Ambassador, if you don't feel the need to explain what about this proposal makes it inherently immoral or insane, I don't see why we should consider radical to be a bad thing.

Furthermore, I doubt the author of this proposal ever expected to gain support from an Inquisition, new or old.

[Studly Penguins]

Really, good Ambassador, if you don't feel the need to explain what about this proposal makes it inherently immoral or insane, I don't see why we should consider radical to be a bad thing.

Furthermore, I doubt the author of this proposal ever expected to gain support from an Inquisition, new or old.

The Ambassador is correct, as an Inquistion wouldnt ever lend its support to much of anything science related.

Anyways back on topic, all we are trying to do is set a standard or boundaries if you will the right of people to determine the way in which they exit the "world". We have no wish to MANDATE euthanasia but seek to guarantee ones right to do that if they wish.

[SilentScope4]

See, I disagree. It seems that this Assembly is only willing to engage matters of a clearly black or white nature. Nobody wants to admit anything is gray. Nobody wants to admit that sometimes the answer isn't to prohibit or proliferate... sometimes it is just to regulate. To manage things humanely, and in moderation. This is not fence-sitting, Ambassadors, this is wisdom.

This isn't wisdom, this is a waste of the WA's time. The World Assembly is an international organization here to make international law. Law doesn't view things in gray, it views things in black and white. This proposal is just an opinion piece that nobody, nobody at all, has to listen to. And why would they? Each nation already has its own laws on end-of-life choices that suits that national culture just fine.

Anyways back on topic, all we are trying to do is set a standard or boundaries if you will the right of people to determine the way in which they exit the "world". We have no wish to MANDATE euthanasia but seek to guarantee ones right to do that if they wish.

Then your resolution fails in that regard. All nations opposed to euthanasia will ignore your resolution because your resolution is only BESEECHING nations. Therefore, people residing in those nations will continue to be denied the right to euthanasia. You want to 'guarrantee' a person's right to euthanasia? Change your Beseeching to Mandate, and create a Commitee to watch over all nations to ensure that all nations will respect a person's right to euthanasia.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: If it only "BESEECHES" then it's only 'Mild' in strength, at the most, rather than 'Significant'.

[Studly Penguins]

Well now honored Ambassadors,

I have tried to abstain from going Mandatory on this bill. I do see the side of well BEESEECHES is a nice way to say "Could you guys please do this for us". I tried to stay out of the mandates to allow for Nat-Sovs, etc . A Mandate is what I and the co-author wanted orignally, but we settled on the beseeches to start with.

In light of the above posts, we have now made the following edit:

MANDATING all WA Nations allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.

Better and happy now?