[DEFEATED] Treatment of the Deceased

[Kenmoria]

Im a w.a delegate and would like to ask what about those who are cremated? Or other forms of burial practice. I understand they cannot be exhumed, but you should explain that in a clause.

(OOC: This proposal covers only practices where the body of the deceased is left intact, most likely burial. I am considering writing one about traditions where this is not true, assuming that this legislation passes.)

[Ard al Islam]

I am submitting this proposal with a puppet nation of mine called Fecaw. Fecaw may also answer some comments.

(Image)

---

Treatment of the Deceased
Category: Moral Decency ♢ Strength: Mild ♢ Proposed by: Fecaw

This august General Assembly,

Having already guaranteed provisions for the deceased in wartime in its one hundred and thirty sixth resolution,

Wishing to expand its legislative protection to all the deceased,

Realising that remains of the deceased can sometimes be irretrievable or unidentifiable,

Taking into account that authorities may find it necessary to exhume remains for a criminal investigation,

Noting the various personal, cultural and religious provisions relating to the treatment of the deceased,

Hoping to establish prohibitions on malicious damage to the deceased,

Now in this present session assembled, by the approval of its many delegates and members, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "grave" as a location where the remains of the deceased are interred,
   2. "mutilation" as dismemberment or unnecessary damage,
   3. "unreasonable burial requests" as requests that could be expected to:
      
      1. cause damage to property,
      2. be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased or the deceased,
      3. contravene national or international legislation.
   4. "molestation of a grave" as:
      
      1. opening of the grave unless previously permitted by the now deceased,
      2. destruction or damage not serving a legitimate purpose which the deceased could not reasonably object to to a grave's markers unless previously permitted by the now deceased,
      3. mutilation of interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation.
2. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect graves at least younger than a time that would take unembalmed interred remains to decay to the fullest possible extent from molestation.
3. Mandates that all burial requests not considered to be unreasonable that are contained in the will shall be executed.
4. Authorizes member states to:
   
   1. allow remains to be left in situ if they are considered to be irretrievable without unreasonable efforts,
   2. legislate freely on the scientific or medicinal use of organs or tissues from remains, at least allowing residents to opt-out of any use of their organs or tissues,
   3. handle remains in a manner contrary to the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.
5. Clarifies that the World Assembly shall not restrict any cultural or religious practices relating to the treatment of the deceased, if these practices are known to have been explicitly requested by the deceased at the time of death unless a compelling reason in clauses 1 or 4 prevents it.

Category: Moral Decency
Proposed by: The Community of Erithaca
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming General Assembly resolution #136 Convention on Wartime Deceased.

Noting that many people have specific desires as to how their remains shall be disposed of, desires that may be irrelevant in the face of the abilities and standards of member states.

Taking into account the disruption to economies and building development caused by the presence of cemeteries.

Further taking into account that authorities may find it necessary to exhume remains for a criminal investigation.

Observing the disruption, destruction and movement of remains and tombs.

Realising that remains can be irretrievable or unidentifiable.

Hereby:

1. Demands that member states enforce laws that protect remains and tombs younger than 65 years from molestation unless ashes have been scattered.

2. Defines molestation of a grave as:

(a.) opening of the grave unless unless formerly permitted by the deceased
(b.) destruction or defacing of headstones or markers unless permitted by the deceased
(c.) mutilation of the interred remains, except in the requirements of an autopsy or a criminal investigation

2.1. Defines mutilation as dismemberment or unnecessary damage.

2.2. Defines unreasonable burial requests as requests that would:

(a.) cause damage to property
(b.) be impossible to finance by the relations of the deceased or the deceased
(c.) break national or World Assembly laws

3. Authorizes member nations to protect tombs for longer than the previously allotted time.

4. Authorizes member nation authorities to exhume and investigate remains if deemed necessary as part of a criminal investigation or autopsy.

5. Designates the will as the supreme authority on how the writer of the will shall be disposed of unless the request is unreasonable.

6. Demands that member nations require the declaring of death within 14 days of the discovery of remains.

7. Authorizes governments to leave remains in situ if they are irretrievable without unreasonable efforts.

8. Authorizes governments to handle the remains against the wishes of the deceased or their family in the event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.

Please post constructive criticism as to how I could improve this before submitting it.

Aye.

[Fecaw]

If you agree with the proposal, you can approve it with the link that I sent you.

[Fecaw]

Just reached quorum! Should go to vote any moment now.

EDIT: Why is there such a delay?

[Kenmoria]

Just reached quorum! Should go to vote any moment now.

EDIT: Why is there such a delay?

(OOC: It has to wait for an update of the game’s servers.)

[Fecaw]

Just reached quorum! Should go to vote any moment now.

EDIT: Why is there such a delay?

(OOC: It has to wait for an update of the game’s servers.)

*presses F5 again*
Is that related to the WA update that affects regions?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: It has to wait for an update of the game’s servers.)

*presses F5 again*
Is that related to the WA update that affects regions?

(OOC: Yes.)

[Mundiferrum]

In spirit, we are for, but there are too many problems with this resolution for us to actually support it -- for example, "fully decay" is incredibly vague, since at the very least we believe it means for the remains to be stripped of all soft tissue, but it can also be interpreted as any hard tissue, like bones or shells or hair, must decay as well, which would be an absurd amount of time. The biggest problem we see with this proposal, however, is that throughout the text there is an implicit method of treating the deceased -- burial, we believe -- that either contradicts its final operative clause, or else renders the whole resolution irrelevant. Hence we are currently abstaining, although we may eventually be inclined to vote against.

[The Great Boom]

"Why do you recognize the need for criminal investigations to violate grave sites, but not exempt them from your resolution explicitly?"

[Ave Gloriana]

While this proposal is well-intended and might make good national law, it is not of significant importance to warrant being part of international law.

Therefore, we vote against.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Tokiko looked over the notes on this new proposal. Who buried their dead? In Kyoki Chudoku, incineration was the norm- especially since the Nightmare, when there’d been too many bodies to bury in any organised fashion regardless.

“So, umm...anyone gonna explain to me why this is important? It’s avoiding dying I care about. Maybe I’ve spent too long wading through corpses, but I can’t see why it’s important to this organisation that bodies not be disturbed, compared to other issues. I mean, can’t be helped sometimes, right?”

[Fecaw]

Various complaints about the resolution will be answered in a soon to be published dispatch.

[VW53Aland]

VW53ALand is against the molestation of remains and against the desecration of burial sites. However, we would like to see this go further than just burials and remains decaying. For instance, though not limiting to, cremation is a largely widespread treatment of deceased. We think desecration of for instance walls with embedded urns with ashes, is equal to desecration of grave stones on a burial site. Furthermore, we feel that multiple parts of this legislation are to vague. We feel that limitations listed are incomplete and that there are too many ways to go around this resolution.
Besides that, mentioning "cultural or religious practices" comes out of the blue sky suddenly in the last clause. And that last clause seems to add nothing than effecting possible future legislation. What other practices than cultural or religious are there, and if any, why are they not exempted?
And last, but certainly not least, clause 3 interferes with clause 4c. If someone left a will with a 'reasonable burial request', containing "cultural or religious practices" but deceased in an "event of an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation". Which clause supersedes? Should the deceased be buried as requested per clause 3 and because the WA shall not restrict those cultural or religious practices? Or shall there be treatment of the "remains in a manner contrary to the wishes of the deceased" per clause 4c? And who is to decide.
Though the bill looks pretty tight, it also feels too vague at the same time. Corruption is too easy, we fear. We are not sure this bill is a useful addition.

Buried remains (and all other remains) should and can be protected, but we think this bill does that insufficiently. Therefore, VW53ALand will vote against.

[Kenmoria]

Tokiko looked over the notes on this new proposal. Who buried their dead? In Kyoki Chudoku, incineration was the norm- especially since the Nightmare, when there’d been too many bodies to bury in any organised fashion regardless.

“So, umm...anyone gonna explain to me why this is important? It’s avoiding dying I care about. Maybe I’ve spent too long wading through corpses, but I can’t see why it’s important to this organisation that bodies not be disturbed, compared to other issues. I mean, can’t be helped sometimes, right?”

“I suppose that the idea of corpses being disrespected is fairly Western, but nevertheless is an important moral concept and one that doesn’t cause harm to anybody. From what I can gather, Kyoki Chudoku is a nation that practices incineration as the main form of deceased treatment, so you would be fairly unaffected by this proposal, which covers only burial and similar practices.”

[Araraukar]

"As the mutilation ban only addresses corpses already buried, Araraukar will keep to its practice to recycle the nutrients in human bodies for agricultural uses by in essence putting the corpses through a woodchipper - though purpose-built for handling corpses - before composting the remains. Every city has memorial parks in which family members can gather to remember the deceased, without needing to go through the macabre experience of walking on soil containing rotting corpses. We will however refrain from voting, because we find this unnecessary nitpicking on behalf of the World Assembly."

[Neo Kalashnikov]

"My question stands only as such: What does this mean for compulsory Organ Donations? That is the majority of my Nations Healthcare."

[Fecaw]

"As the mutilation ban only addresses corpses already buried, Araraukar will keep to its practice to recycle the nutrients in human bodies for agricultural uses by in essence putting the corpses through a woodchipper - though purpose-built for handling corpses - before composting the remains. Every city has memorial parks in which family members can gather to remember the deceased, without needing to go through the macabre experience of walking on soil containing rotting corpses."

Completely acceptable under the terms of the resolution. OOC: Is this an IRL thing?

[Fecaw]

My question stands only as such: What does this mean for compulsory Organ Donations? That is the majority of my Nations Healthcare.

You can do what you want with organ donations, as long as you allow people to opt-out of it. 4.b. and 4.c. are relevant to this.

[Neo Kalashnikov]

In that case Neo Kalashnikov shall be voting no. As I said Mandatory Organ Donations are the vast majority of why our healthcare is as well as it is. I can appreciate the vast majority of the points being made here but we simply must think of the living before the dead.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is this an IRL thing?

OOC: It's not so much a thing in Finland, as our soil degrades bodies quickly anyway, but it's certainly something that has been at least discussed in real life (globally, unsurprisingly in USA ) and likely can actually already be done legally if the person on question and the relatives agree to it. It's all part of the whole "let's recycle instead of making more soap mummies" thing. Sky burials (letting carrion birds pick the bones clean) are a variant of the same idea. (More here on the subject if interested.)

But Araraukar is all about environmentalism, so for them your body being used to produce food (it is actually composted, so it's only the nutrients that go onto the fields) for everyone is much more natural than burying them into parks. The memorial parks are a bit like cemeteries except for no tombstones or underground corpses. Basically places to visit in remembrance.

[Kenmoria]

In that case Neo Kalashnikov shall be voting no. As I said Mandatory Organ Donations are the vast majority of why our healthcare is as well as it is. I can appreciate the vast majority of the points being made here but we simply must think of the living before the dead.

(OOC: I believe that healthcare does count as a ‘compelling purpose’ under clause 4c, so you could use this and, via some creative compliance, continue to use mandatory organ donation.)

[Marxist Germany]

Ambassador Klaus enters the voting chamber, picks up the ballot paper, and casts an AGAINST vote. He then enters the debate chamber to explain his reasons. "I am glad you answered my concerns about the proposal ambassador, however, I believe that the restrictions placed here are too little and not enough, thus why I have voted against. In the case this shall be redrafted, I will make sure to help with the process, to ensure satisfaction with the proposal. Thank you for listening and have a good day."

[Blueflarst]

This proposal would make it illegal for authorities to exhume graves in an investigation.

The authority must not touch my body if i do want it.
Your laws can not be over the sanctity of the body

[Mundiferrum]

Yeah, we will note that the above are not all of our misgivings, but, again, the method burial being what was *implicitly* considered alone by this resolution was our primary qualm, insomuch as the resolution doesn't even consider other funerary practices -- it approves of most of them, sure, but it's not really "treatment of the deceased" when its only real consideration is for those buried. In fact, because of this, clause three, that reasonable *burial* requests must be performed, means that there are no protections for reasonable requests for other disposal practices, such as cremation.

At any rate, another major qualm includes "that are not contained in the will" -- what of individuals who do not set up a will? in fact requiring any *explicit* approval of the deceased indicates, to us, that if other funerary customs are to be considered, it becomes the responsibility of the member state to dispose of the body accordingly, instead of the individual's immediate family, if, say, the individual is not mentally competent to detail its preferred method of disposal, or if the individual is in any other way incapable of preparing his or her will.

Queen Thouris, having been the one to immediately receive the dispatch, has directed us to now vote AGAINST the resolution. We may not be as active in the World Assembly as we once were, but we remain familiar, and we have ourselves passed a resolution. We would have preferred to have been responded to here, and, especially, to *not* have been equated to a lemming. We ask that the delegation from Fecaw refamiliarize themselves with the fine art of diplomacy.

[Iciaros]

Ambassador Mercia lowers her copy of the proposal and casts her vote against. "Iciaros will be voting against this resolution. While nothing we do at present would put us in contravention of its mandates, we think it a poor idea to make graves sacred, particularly where it might prejudice the interests of the living. We would rather not see such a veneration of the dead rise to the standard of international law."