[PASSED] Repeal "Assisted Suicide Act"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Assisted Suicide Act"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly finds as follows:

1. People suffering from a chronic, insurable, and painful condition should have the right to end their own lives voluntarily in a painless manner. Nations should respect an individual's choice in this manner, insofar as that choice does not harm others directly.
   
   
2. GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' violates this duty by allowing some member nations to prohibit assisted suicide and euthanasia within their jurisdictions. And in consequence of the regulatory decisions that the Assembly permits, it makes member nations collectively complicit in forcing people to suffer unnecessarily.
   
   
3. While GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act' allows people to travel to different jurisdictions, this creates a de facto prohibition on assisted suicide for people who lack funds needed for travel. As most people who seek euthanasia are also suffering from severe medical conditions that require specialised care, GA 285's travel rights also are far more restrictive than they appear on face: chartering a private air ambulance flight, transporting all the equipment necessary for the patient, and arrangement of medical services in a foreign nation without social insurance are all expensive transactions beyond the reach of, say, a terminal pensioner on a fixed income.
   
   
4. It is more than likely that GA 285's travel provisions cannot be exercised, due to massive financial barriers, except by those who are extremely wealthy. The Assembly has in the past acted to strike down domestic prohibitions designed to make certain procedures exorbitantly expensive or available only to those able to travel to foreign jurisdictions. It furthermore has taken decisive action to enable access to regionally-inaccessible medical procedures. This is no different.
   
   
5. Additionally, section 4 of GA 285, by prohibiting 'the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures', stops the Assembly from providing funds to pay for or subsidise euthanasia procedures, blocking legislation intended to expand access to such procedures and ultimately keeping the option out of reach for many suffering patients. To take meaningful action on this topic, these blocking clauses must be repealed.
   
   
6. Only by passage of enabling legislation could the Assembly's duty to terminal patients who voluntarily seek euthanasia be fulfilled in the face of local particularists complicit in prolonging suffering (except for those socioeconomically privileged few who can pay their own way in foreign jurisdictions). This is no different from previous resolutions striking down policies that make certain procedures unaffordable and unaccessible to most people. The Assembly hopes that such enabling legislation be enacted forthwith.

Now, therefore, the World Assembly repeals GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act'.

Addendum. viewtopic.php?p=30575807#p30575807

Campaign telegram.

Hello there, %NATION%!

I recently proposed a repeal of GA 285 'Assisted Suicide Act', which blocks the World Assembly from legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia. The deceptively titled resolution, which has for too long sat on the books, must go before a proposal which can enshrine assisted suicide rights can pass.

Do to [Edit. I am aware that I typo'd do and to. Whoops.] that, I need your approval of this repeal. You can approval at the link below.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1642649454

Yours,

Imperium Anglorum
Delegate for Europe

[Kitzerland]

I would make clear that you are referring only to euthanasia with the express consent of the patient.

I support it!

[The Cheeki Breeki Anarchists]

"Hello and welcome to Soviet France if you are feeling Suicidal you have come to the right place. Because I want to f*cking kill myself too."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium has no objections to this repeal. However, we have little to add in the form of argumentation; at this time, we can offer only our support."

[Christian Democrats]

AGAINST

Believing that people suffering through a chronic, incurable, and painful condition ought have the ability to voluntarily end end their lives,

Such an ability is already secured by international law.

Further believing that a nation ought respect an individual's choices if those choices do not harm others,

Literally, euthanasia is the act of a physician inflicting harm on a patient -- i.e., by killing him.

Observing that 285 GA grants nations 'the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia', and considering that the nations which prohibit such actions are effectively forcing such people to suffer and are therefore complicit in causing the suffering which those people are attempting to avoid,

You're acting as if there's not such a thing as palliative care.

Observing that while the proposal allows for travel to different jurisdictions, such travel is extremely expensive and therefore inaccessible to the vast majority of the population,

Really? An airline ticket is significantly less expensive than a funeral.

[Calladan]

I do have a few questions about the rights granted in the resolution that this would revoke, and what that would mean for citizens if nations were to decide to act on the revocation of said rights :-

(Note - to save a lot of repeated typing, just assume that "assisted suicide" refers to "euthanasia" as well)

Clause 2 permits travel out of a nation for the purpose of assisted suicide. If this resolution is repealed, would nations that forbid assisted suicide within their borders then be able to forbid their citizens to travel to other nations that still permit it?

Clause 3 prevents penalties being applied if someone refuses to take part in an assisted suicide. If the resolution is repealed, does that mean someone could be required to perform (or assist in) an assisted suicide against their will or be threatened with fines, jail or even execution (pending other WA laws, obviously).

Clause 5 ensures any laws surrounding the legalisation of assisted suicide in a member nation include requirements for safety and consent. If this resolution is repealed, can a nation make any laws it likes? Could assisted suicide potentially become a substitute for murder, only legal?

I realise that these might be an overreaction on my part, and that the general view is that because Clause 1 permits nations to decide the matter themselves that repealing it won't make much of a different, but I would like an answer to these questions because - well, because they do seem important. If not to Calladan then probably to some other nations.

So - if someone could provide me with the answers, I would be most grateful.

[Calladan]

AGAINST

Believing that people suffering through a chronic, incurable, and painful condition ought have the ability to voluntarily end end their lives,

Such an ability is already secured by international law.

While I am not sure why an argument to oppose the repeal of "Assisted Suicide" is being supported by "Decriminalisation of Suicide Act" I feel it necessary to point out that in order to kill yourself you have to have control over your own body. For those who are in a truly chronic state of illness - those who are bed-bound and can not move under their own power - killing themselves is nigh on impossible. Hence the occasional need for the "assisted" part.

[Christian Democrats]

AGAINST


Such an ability is already secured by international law.

While I am not sure why an argument to oppose the repeal of "Assisted Suicide" is being supported by "Decriminalisation of Suicide Act" I feel it necessary to point out that in order to kill yourself you have to have control over your own body. For those who are in a truly chronic state of illness - those who are bed-bound and can not move under their own power - killing themselves is nigh on impossible. Hence the occasional need for the "assisted" part.

The "assisted part" exists because patients want validation that killing oneself is legitimate. It very often has very little to do with inability and significantly more to do with the false sense of moral uprightness that a physician's involvement confers.

(The same can be said for capital punishment by lethal injection.)

[Calladan]

While I am not sure why an argument to oppose the repeal of "Assisted Suicide" is being supported by "Decriminalisation of Suicide Act" I feel it necessary to point out that in order to kill yourself you have to have control over your own body. For those who are in a truly chronic state of illness - those who are bed-bound and can not move under their own power - killing themselves is nigh on impossible. Hence the occasional need for the "assisted" part.

The "assisted part" exists because patients want validation that killing oneself is legitimate. It very often has very little to do with inability and significantly more to do with the false sense of moral uprightness that a physician's involvement confers.

(The same can be said for capital punishment by lethal injection.)

Fair enough. For what it's worth - my support for the repeal is possibly going to come down to the answer to questions in my previous post. The grounds in the repeal seem reasonable enough, but it's the fallout of the repeal my government is worried about - the effect that repealing the other clauses will have.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This august World Assembly,

Believing that people suffering through a chronic, incurable, and painful condition ought have the ability to voluntarily end their lives in a painless manner,

Further believing that a nation ought respect an individual's choices if those choices do not harm others,

Observing that GA 285 grants nations 'the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia', and concluding that the nations which prohibit such actions may as well be forcing such people to suffer and are therefore complicit in causing the suffering which those people are attempting to avoid,

Observing that while the proposal allows for travel to different jurisdictions to secure assisted suicide, such travel is extremely expensive because of costs originating from chartering a private air ambulance flight, transport of all the equipment necessary to keep a patient stable, and arrangement of medical services in a foreign nation where domestic health insurance is not accepted,

Appalled that those costs make it unlikely for people, except those who are exceptionally wealthy, to actually exercise their rights under that provision,

Seeing that proposals have been made to replace this resolution with new legislation that would guarantee to persons suffering such diseases substantive access to dignity and choice,

Hereby repeals GA 285 "Assisted Suicide Act".

---

Clause 2 permits travel out of a nation for the purpose of assisted suicide. If this resolution is repealed, would nations that forbid assisted suicide within their borders then be able to forbid their citizens to travel to other nations that still permit it?

Clause 3 prevents penalties being applied if someone refuses to take part in an assisted suicide. If the resolution is repealed, does that mean someone could be required to perform (or assist in) an assisted suicide against their will or be threatened with fines, jail or even execution (pending other WA laws, obviously).

Clause 5 ensures any laws surrounding the legalisation of assisted suicide in a member nation include requirements for safety and consent. If this resolution is repealed, can a nation make any laws it likes? Could assisted suicide potentially become a substitute for murder, only legal?

PARSONS: A replacement decriminalising assisted suicide would have to be passed. I have already made enquiries for an author to write and propose such a resolution.

[States of Glory WA Office]

The "assisted part" exists because patients want validation that killing oneself is legitimate. It very often has very little to do with inability and significantly more to do with the false sense of moral uprightness that a physician's involvement confers.

(The same can be said for capital punishment by lethal injection.)

Fair enough. For what it's worth - my support for the repeal is possibly going to come down to the answer to questions in my previous post. The grounds in the repeal seem reasonable enough, but it's the fallout of the repeal my government is worried about - the effect that repealing the other clauses will have.

Neville: People had the same worries when GA #112 a.k.a Convention on Execution was repealed. A replacement would have to be drafted beforehand, in our view.

Clause 2 permits travel out of a nation for the purpose of assisted suicide. If this resolution is repealed, would nations that forbid assisted suicide within their borders then be able to forbid their citizens to travel to other nations that still permit it?

Clause 3 prevents penalties being applied if someone refuses to take part in an assisted suicide. If the resolution is repealed, does that mean someone could be required to perform (or assist in) an assisted suicide against their will or be threatened with fines, jail or even execution (pending other WA laws, obviously).

Clause 5 ensures any laws surrounding the legalisation of assisted suicide in a member nation include requirements for safety and consent. If this resolution is repealed, can a nation make any laws it likes? Could assisted suicide potentially become a substitute for murder, only legal?

PARSONS: A replacement decriminalising assisted suicide would have to be passed. I have already made enquiries for an author to write and propose such a resolution.

Fairburn: Draft one yourself if you're serious about pursuing this.

Actually, on second thoughts, don't do that. This repeal is so awful that I almost want euthanasia to be decriminalised just so I don't have to look at this thing for another second! Better dead than braindead, I always say!

Neville: Shouldn't you be supporting this, then?

Fairburn: I said almost, Neville.

[Aclion]

You have our support. A meaningful right to life requires a right to death.

The "assisted part" exists because patients want validation that killing oneself is legitimate. It very often has very little to do with inability and significantly more to do with the false sense of moral uprightness that a physician's involvement confers.

(The same can be said for capital punishment by lethal injection.)

Regardless of "validation" as if any is needed, the fact remains that those with the best case for the right to suicide are those who are physically unable to perform the act without assistance.

[Kaboomlandia]

"Conditional support. We'll vote for this if there's a replacement ready."

Terry Miller
WA Ambassador

[Knootoss]

"I will support this repeal."

Barrell Marais
Knootian ambassador to the World Assembly

[Auralia]

Further believing that a nation ought respect an individual's choices if those choices do not harm others,

We do not agree with this assertion. On the contrary, states often intervene to prevent individuals from harming themselves. Common examples include the use of a prescription system to control access to dangerous drugs, as well as the use of involuntary psychiatric commitment for persons at risk of self-harm.

Observing that 285 GA grants nations 'the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia', and considering that the nations which prohibit such actions are effectively forcing such people to suffer and are therefore complicit in causing the suffering which those people are attempting to avoid, and

We do not accept the notion that an individual has a "right" to kill himself, or that experiencing suffering is a greater evil than disposing of one's life. Catholic moral teaching is very clear on this point -- from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

We strenuously oppose this repeal and will take whatever action is necessary to prevent its passage.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Christian Democrats]

You have our support. A meaningful right to life requires a right to death.

That's like saying a meaningful right to liberty requires a right to sell oneself into slavery.

"I will support this repeal."

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

[Calladan]

Further believing that a nation ought respect an individual's choices if those choices do not harm others,

We do not agree with this assertion. On the contrary, states often intervene to prevent individuals from harming themselves. Common examples include the use of a prescription system to control access to dangerous drugs, as well as the use of involuntary psychiatric commitment for persons at risk of self-harm.

Observing that 285 GA grants nations 'the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia', and considering that the nations which prohibit such actions are effectively forcing such people to suffer and are therefore complicit in causing the suffering which those people are attempting to avoid, and

We do not accept the notion that an individual has a "right" to kill himself, or that experiencing suffering is a greater evil than disposing of one's life. Catholic moral teaching is very clear on this point -- from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

We strenuously oppose this repeal and will take whatever action is necessary to prevent its passage.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding something here, but I seem to be missing a key point of your argument.

The current situation is that the resolution at hand permits member nations to decide whether assisted suicide is legal within their borders or not. But it also requires nations to permit their citizens to travel abroad should they decide to seek to end their life in another nation, should the nation they are in forbid it, and another nation allow it.

If the repeal goes through, a member nation can still decide whether assisted suicide is legal or not within their borders, because The WA would have effectively not ruled on it.

So really the situation would not change all that much.

And given that you appear to find suicide such an abominable act, I can not grasp WHY you are defending a repeal resolution that supports it.

(I am really just asking for my own edification and clarification, because I am truly confused and bemused by this).

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Calladan, the only reason why someone would repeal this act is to open up the road for legislation to mandate that assisted suicide be decriminalised in all member nations. To be clear, that is my intention.

[Calladan]

OOC: Calladan, the only reason why someone would repeal this act is to open up the road for legislation to mandate that assisted suicide be decriminalised in all member nations. To be clear, that is my intention.

No - that much I understand. And indeed support. But if someone is so adamantly AGAINST suicide and AGAINST assisted suicide, I can not, for the life of me, understand WHY they would be so against a repeal that supports a resolution that supports it......

Oh - wait. Are they holding on to the current resolution so they can keep assisted suicide illegal in their nation, even though they are required to allow their citizens to travel to other countries, rather than risk a more powerful resolution passing that would forcibly require them to legalise it in their nation?

Yeah - okay. I get it now. It's not about the repeal - it's about what happens next.

Sorry for the confusion

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

We strenuously oppose this repeal and will take whatever action is necessary to prevent its passage.

(I am really just asking for my own edification and clarification, because I am truly confused and bemused by this).

(OOC: Also confused by this logic as well, I can see how you support repeal but are opposed by the language of the resolution endorsing ideas in direct contradiction to Catholic principles.)

The Ambassador from the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
In review of GA#285, we find that all of our concerns regarding the morality of this issue are appropriately addressed. We are concerned that a repeal draft will not adequately respect the traditions and rights of member states in determining the cannon of laws around these issues. It is our firm belief that GA#285 strikes a fair balance in not imposing a uniform morality around a specific issue upon diverse member states. We too will require a replacement legislation written prior to supporting this repeal. For now we remain conditionally opposed to the repeal until such concerns over sovereignty, and moral traditions are resolved.

Conditionally Opposed

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, is there a planned replacement?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Ambassador, is there a planned replacement?"

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

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, is there a planned replacement?"

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

"Very well. The Wallenburgian delegation will make a decision on this repeal after it has evaluated the replacement."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Ambassador, is there a planned replacement?"

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

Fairburn: I can assure you that there is no need for that. I support this fine repeal and to make life easier for you, I have taken it upon myself to draft a suitable replacement. I look forward to cooperating with you.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Excidium Planetis remains firmly opposed to this repeal on the following grounds: First, that in matters of no international importance, national sovereignty ought to be respected, and imposing the legalization of assisted suicide is no respect to national sovereignty.

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