[PASSED] Access to Life-Ending Services

[Wallenburg]

"No euthanization process is 'completely painless'."

[Justosia]

"This is all so depressing."

Imperial Ambassador Alejandro Suarez had just received a secure text. Another nation in their region has left the World Assembly. He worried if he had just said that out loud. He hadn't thankfully.

Personally, he was all for the useless offing themselves. Less taxpayer Justos wasted on keeping them alive. The church would never approve tho.

"Tedious, dramatic leftists......can I get wine here?"

[The Python]

"No euthanization process is 'completely painless'."

the operation is fast and free from extreme pain and/or agony, and the method of death is chosen by the patient,

How's that instead?

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "When I read some of the objections to this resolution here I can't help but think of my dear aunt. A terrible case of cancer that had taken away any comfort of life. I say 'comfort', yet I actually should say 'dignity'. She had to be fed via a feeding tube which constantly leaked and caused inflammations, and many other complications. Whenever I went to visit her, it was heartbreaking to see how she was wasting away because of her disease and the treatments that she was getting. And every single time she told us how badly she wanted to die, to be free of the pain, to be free of the indignity of life that she was experiencing as a result of it all.

There is no god or deity in existence that can justify such suffering. And any divine being that allows such suffering without intervening, without helping that person, is a cruel and evil deity that deserves no praise or following. I reject the implication that there are religious grounds to oppose euthanasia. My aunt was able to end her life on her terms, through a valid procedure of euthanasia. I wasn't able to be at her bedside when it happened, yet the family members that were around her said they had never seen her more at peace. Euthanasia is not evil, it is a procedure that allows someone to be at peace, to end their life on their terms without having to suffer needlessly.

Daarwyrth fully supports a free and responsible access to euthanasia. We will not contribute to the suffering of patients that no longer experience any dignity or comfort of life. Religion cannot supercede basic empathy and understanding."

OOC: This is fully based on real life, and my aunt whose bravery I will praise until my last breath for going through the process of euthanasia.

[The Order of Makai]

"RIGHTWINGERS WILL OPPOSE THIS"
Well this is off to a good start.
Imagine being so unmanly (or unwomanly perhaps?) that you want to force the state to pay for your suicide. No, be a man and simply be stoned off your ass on opiods while awaiting the end instead.

[Daarwyrth]

"RIGHTWINGERS WILL OPPOSE THIS"
Well this is off to a good start.
Imagine being so unmanly (or unwomanly perhaps?) that you want to force the state to pay for your suicide. No, be a man and simply be stoned off your ass on opiods while awaiting the end instead.

Vyn Nysen: "Behold, the manliest commentary on this proposal. Behold, the masculinity oozing off of this like thick, reeking poison, ready to ravage any healthy system into a twisted, toxic wasteland. Behold, and be in awe of this display of masculinity, Ambassadors, and take in its rotten, mouldy core, filled with worms and vermin eating away at what is left of it."

[Tinhampton]

Smith: Daarwyrth can legalise assisted dying procedures right now, without Regulatory Superstate interference.

[Daarwyrth]

Smith: Daarwyrth can legalise assisted dying procedures right now, without Regulatory Superstate interference.

Vyn Nysen: "That would be only one state. It would be kinder and more humane to ensure that people across the World Assembly would have access to it, without having to travel to different countries where the procedure is legal, if that is even possible in their medical state. We banned honor-based violence and ritual sacrifices, and we passed legislation legalising abortion across the World Assembly. Why would this be any different? If we accepted, I quote, "superstate interference" then, why would it be any different now?"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Flamebait title does not help your agenda.

IC: "If euthanasia is to be a health service WA-wide, then it need only be defined as that, at most a mention of it to be "affordable" would do, as that would put it in line with all other health services currently. You don't need to go down the ridiculous road of making it an extra special service, if you make it affordable. Someone who can only afford to pay one rauk, will get it for one rauk, but someone who can afford to pay the full price of the medications used for it, the time the professional staff use on their case, the location, and whatever happens to their body right after, should pay for all of that. It is only fair."

OOC: "Rauk" is Araraukar's currency unit because it amused me way back when and still does. Also because aras are intelligent birds and I don't want them as currency unit.

[Oinopa Ponton]

COMMUNIQUÉ of the ÉMINENCES GRISES of the SUPREME SOVIET
of the SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF OINOPA PONTOI
Ανακοιθωμέν της Αποθρόνοι της Υπέρτατης Σοβιέτ
της Σοβιετικής Σοσιαλιστικής Δημοκρατίας του Οινόπα Ποντών

ΥΣΑ-I: While we are in support of the proposal in theory, an excerpt of the current proposal seems questionable in practice:

A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

The Hippocratic Oath forbids a medical professional from killing their patient: I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked. This is lamentable, and we understand the authors of the resolution prepared for this primary contingency by noting the ability for an okros-complying physician to "express a bona fide moral objection". However, the physician in question is still led to "direct patients to [...] euthanasia services". This is also forbidden by the oath, which proceeds: I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan. Should it truly be mandatory for a physician to betray their oath in such a way?

[Goobergunchia]

The Order of Makai, *** warned for flaming ***.

I've been mulling this over for a bit but, especially given the tenor of this thread generally, I am going to rule that the thread title is trolly given that it doesn't really serve a purpose other than to anger those who disagree with either the proposal or the premise, and have edited the title accordingly. It's too mild to be generally actionable but as the thread title it's a distraction and an invitation to threadjack.

Goobergunchia
Forum Moderator

[Araraukar]

The Hippocratic Oath forbids a medical professional from killing their patient

"What is the hypocritical oath? And how do they treat any illness if they can't use normal medication? Most medications are lethal with wrong dosage. If they meant lethal dosage, they should've said so."

[The Python]

COMMUNIQUÉ of the ÉMINENCES GRISES of the SUPREME SOVIET
of the SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF OINOPA PONTOI
Ανακοιθωμέν της Αποθρόνοι της Υπέρτατης Σοβιέτ
της Σοβιετικής Σοσιαλιστικής Δημοκρατίας του Οινόπα Ποντών

ΥΣΑ-I: While we are in support of the proposal in theory, an excerpt of the current proposal seems questionable in practice:

A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

The Hippocratic Oath forbids a medical professional from killing their patient: I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked. This is lamentable, and we understand the authors of the resolution prepared for this primary contingency by noting the ability for an okros-complying physician to "express a bona fide moral objection". However, the physician in question is still led to "direct patients to [...] euthanasia services". This is also forbidden by the oath, which proceeds: I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan. Should it truly be mandatory for a physician to betray their oath in such a way?

According to the version found here, it actually says:

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.

Unless the version I'm looking at is wrong.

[Wallenburg]

"RIGHTWINGERS WILL OPPOSE THIS"
Well this is off to a good start.
Imagine being so unmanly (or unwomanly perhaps?) that you want to force the state to pay for your suicide. No, be a man and simply be stoned off your ass on opiods while awaiting the end instead.

"Imagine dying in such a reduced state of consciousness. How humiliating. Far better to die with all your mental faculties intact. At least then it was you who died, and not some already-half-dead creature inhabiting your body."

According to the version found here, it actually says:

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.

Unless the version I'm looking at is wrong.

OOC: They are drawing from the same ancient version that forbids surgery and abortion. The modern one is, well, modern, and thus has developed a good bit of sense having been adopted since the dawn of germ theory and modern medicine. Of course, none of this actually has anything to do with the morality or lack thereof of assisted suicide. It's just an appeal to authority.

[Comfed]

The General Assembly,

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

Believing that any possible dangers resulting from a "slippery slope" in legalising euthanasia do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms,

Noting that it is thus necessary to establish pro-euthanasia measures in the General Assembly, enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution, “euthanasia” is the killing of a patient, when:
   
   1. the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
   2. the operation is fast and free from extreme pain and/or agony, and the method of death is chosen by the patient, So, if I wanted to be shot into space and then be sent into a volcano, the state would have to give it to me? Scrap the choice of death part.
   3. the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and A better word might be "unbearable" and also maybe state that this is determined by the patient. Also, you may want to add something about their death being in the foreseeable future.
   4. a medical professional assists in the operation.
2. Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients, at government expense "at government expense" is redundant. In areas where euthanasia services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients seeking euthanasia residing in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services.
3. No member nations may discriminate against euthanasia recipients, the families thereof, or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, including but not limited to discrimination in tax. This clause needs a lot of work.
4. No person, or member nation, may coerce a patient to seek euthanasia.
5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

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

[Araraukar]

The General Assembly,

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

Believing that any possible dangers resulting from a "slippery slope" in legalising euthanasia do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms,

Noting that it is thus necessary to establish pro-euthanasia measures in the General Assembly, enacts as follows:

1. In this resolution, “euthanasia” is the killing of a patient, when:
   
   1. the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
   2. the operation is fast and free from extreme pain and/or agony, and the method of death is chosen by the patient, So, if I wanted to be shot into space and then be sent into a volcano, the state would have to give it to me? Scrap the choice of death part.
   3. the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and A better word might be "unbearable" and also maybe state that this is determined by the patient. Also, you may want to add something about their death being in the foreseeable future.
   4. a medical professional assists in the operation.
2. Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients, at government expense "at government expense" is redundant. In areas where euthanasia services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients seeking euthanasia residing in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services.
3. No member nations may discriminate against euthanasia recipients, the families thereof, or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, including but not limited to discrimination in tax. This clause needs a lot of work.
4. No person, or member nation, may coerce a patient to seek euthanasia.
5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

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

OOC: *goes to alter his treatment will to include "throw me into a volcano if I ever end up braindead**

[The Python]

the method of death is chosen by the patient, So, if I wanted to be shot into space and then be sent into a volcano, the state would have to give it to me? Scrap the choice of death part.

Fixed xD

the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and A better word might be "unbearable" and also maybe state that this is determined by the patient. Also, you may want to add something about their death being in the foreseeable future.

I've changed the wording to say "unbearable", but I don't think the "death being in the foreseeable future" should be included. For example, what there was a dysthanasia-esque situation where the patient has their life artificially extended without regard for quality of life, so their death is not necessarily in the "foreseeable future"?

Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients, at government expense "at government expense" is redundant.

Okay

No member nations may discriminate against euthanasia recipients, the families thereof, or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, including but not limited to discrimination in tax. This clause needs a lot of work.

Hmm, any specific suggestions? (I'll check with the co-author about this)

[The Python]

After discussing with Comfed and IA (thank you to both) Clause 3 now reads like this:

No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:

1. imposing higher taxes on those who receive or assist in euthanasia,
2. prosecuting persons who receive or assist in euthanasia,
3. fail to provide equal protection before the law to said persons,
4. implement policies which restrict access to euthanasia.

[The Python]

bump

[The Python]

bumpity bump

[Barfleur]

"I support this proposal, as I believe every person ought to have the right to end one's own life as one sees fit. I am also happy to see protections in place for medical practitioners with a bona fide objection to performing euthanasia."

[Nyxonia]

I think that agony from an incurable illness is too narrow. There are other conditions where euthanasia should be valid. For example, if the person was in a crippling condition that has severely compromised their quality of life. They may not be in pain but maybe they are a quadrapalegic . Or what about someone who has an inoperable brain tumor (or something like ALS) where they provide prior informed-consent?
So maybe under 1. iii. you add those caveats.
For example; I have a standing order that if I am to suffer a condition that makes me incapable of mental functioning and conscious awareness (the things that make me, me) I do not want my life extended.
As a mental turnip I might not be in pain, but that is no existence

[Qvait]

Ambassador Sunna Jóhannsdóttir: The Valkyrian Republic supports a resolution mandating access to euthanasia. However, we have a few issues with the proposal at hand.

3 . No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:

"First, we believe there to be a grammatical error in the above provision, which should state 'No member nation...' instead of the plural form."

5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

"Second, we oppose the inclusion of the above provision, which only serves to delay providing euthanasia services to qualifying patients. Furthermore, licensed medical professionals should not be imposing their preconceived opinions on patients and should do the job that they signed up for, which is to provide medical care and services to their patients."

[Bears Armed]

Ambassador Sunna Jóhannsdóttir: The Valkyrian Republic supports a resolution mandating access to euthanasia. However, we have a few issues with the proposal at hand.

3 . No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:

"First, we believe there to be a grammatical error in the above provision, which should state 'No member nation...' instead of the plural form."

5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

"Second, we oppose the inclusion of the above provision, which only serves to delay providing euthanasia services to qualifying patients. Furthermore, licensed medical professionals should not be imposing their preconceived opinions on patients and should do the job that they signed up for, which is to provide medical care and services to their patients."

"If they 'signed up' as doctors before performing euthanasia was made a part of the job, with no serious reason to anticipate that this change was going to occur, then they did not 'sign up' for this and their consciences should be respected. Only people who become doctors after this function has been defined as part of the job can reasonably be expected to accept it automatically."

Artorrios O Southwoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the W.A.

[The Python]

I think that agony from an incurable illness is too narrow. There are other conditions where euthanasia should be valid. For example, if the person was in a crippling condition that has severely compromised their quality of life. They may not be in pain but maybe they are a quadrapalegic . Or what about someone who has an inoperable brain tumor (or something like ALS) where they provide prior informed-consent?
So maybe under 1. iii. you add those caveats.
For example; I have a standing order that if I am to suffer a condition that makes me incapable of mental functioning and conscious awareness (the things that make me, me) I do not want my life extended.
As a mental turnip I might not be in pain, but that is no existence

Alright, this will be discussed with the co-author :)

3 . No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:

"First, we believe there to be a grammatical error in the above provision, which should state 'No member nation...' instead of the plural form."

Mea culpa, fixed

5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

"Second, we oppose the inclusion of the above provision, which only serves to delay providing euthanasia services to qualifying patients. Furthermore, licensed medical professionals should not be imposing their preconceived opinions on patients and should do the job that they signed up for, which is to provide medical care and services to their patients."

Why?

First, forcing objecting doctors to perform euthanasia is unethical in general. Can't literally any other doctor that doesn't object do the euthanasia? Second, forcing objecting doctors to perform euthanasia would likely result in less people willing to become doctors if they will be forced to perform euthanasia even if they object. Third, "as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services" implies that in the unlikely case that no other euthanasia service is accessible nearby, then they would have to perform the euthanasia in the unlikely event. Fourth, what Bears Armed said.