[PASSED] Access to Life-Ending Services

[Separatist Peoples]

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

"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

"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.

Ooc: I'm going to lead with a note that I support the draft and the underlying policy. But, Python, you aren't really addressing why forcing doctors to aid in euthanasia regardless of personal belief is unethical. You've stated a few times that X is unethical without providing a warrant for why. Your argument would probably fare better if you didn't hold your conclusion out as an a priori assumption.

[The Python]

But, Python, you aren't really addressing why forcing doctors to aid in euthanasia regardless of personal belief is unethical. You've stated a few times that X is unethical without providing a warrant for why. Your argument would probably fare better if you didn't hold your conclusion out as an a priori assumption.

How complicated is it that if you were a doctor and had an objection, you wouldn't want to be forced to go against your objection?

[Separatist Peoples]

But, Python, you aren't really addressing why forcing doctors to aid in euthanasia regardless of personal belief is unethical. You've stated a few times that X is unethical without providing a warrant for why. Your argument would probably fare better if you didn't hold your conclusion out as an a priori assumption.

How complicated is it that if you were a doctor and had an objection, you wouldn't want to be forced to go against your objection?

Ooc: I don't want to pay taxes. That doesn't make enforcing them unethical. You should consider delving into what makes it unethical and why and incorporating that into your defense, because your last few defenses based on ethics have been "because it is bad" without much regard for why it is bad. You revert to an inappropriate burden shift "why should it be good?" without defending your initial premise.

Your defense will improve dramatically if you develop this argument.

[The Python]

How complicated is it that if you were a doctor and had an objection, you wouldn't want to be forced to go against your objection?

Ooc: I don't want to pay taxes. That doesn't make enforcing them unethical.

Because the benefits of taxes outweighs the fact people don't want to pay them? But in this case, the benefits of outlawing conscenscious objection are significantly outweighed by the fact that almost all concerns are solved by requiring objecting doctors to direct the patient to easily accessible euthanasia services.

EDIT: In any case, I think a blocker clause on consciencious objection would be preferrible to enforcing that nations outlaw consciencious objection in the GA, though I'd prefer mandating that member states permit consciencious objection.

[Honeydewistania]

"Opposed until conscientious objection clause removed."

[The Python]

"Opposed until conscientious objection clause removed."

See above lol

[Honeydewistania]

"Opposed until conscientious objection clause removed."

See above lol

I did. Still opposed.

[The Python]

See above lol

I did. Still opposed.

Yes, so why should that clause be removed? Any benefits are outweighed by the fact that 1) An objecting doctor would have to direct the patient to easily accessible euthanasia if necessary and implicitly would have to perform the euthanasia if they can't do this for whatever reason (like no euthanasia services being accessible nearby) 2) A doctor would obviously not want to be forced to do euthanasia even if they have a moral/religious reason to object 3) Less people would want to become doctors if they would be forced to perform euthanasia anyway 4) literally what Bears Armed said.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I don't want to pay taxes. That doesn't make enforcing them unethical.

Because the benefits of taxes outweighs the fact people don't want to pay them? But in this case, the benefits of outlawing conscenscious objection are significantly outweighed by the fact that almost all concerns are solved by requiring objecting doctors to direct the patient to easily accessible euthanasia services.

Ooc: see, this is a justification for your statement. Do this more often.

[Bananaistan]

"The conscientious objection clause is good and should remain.

"Costs falling back on the taxpayer is bad and should be changed.

"The lack of safeguards against undue pressure being brought to bear on individuals is also bad and should be changed. This is actually severely bad when one considers section 3iv which would prevent member states themselves from maintaining such safeguards.

"Referring to euthanasia as an operation is inaccurate in terms of what the word operation is commonly understood to mean in medical contexts by lay people."

[Xanthorrhoea]

In principle, the people of Xanthorrhoea wholeheartedly support the intent of this proposal, but in its current form, it cannot be allowed. It is too narrow where broad protections are needed, and far to broad where it must me more specific.

OOC: This needs more detail, otherwise it’s going to have a huge number of loopholes and unintended consequences. Firstly, a definition of informed consent would go a long way, as leaving it undefined in the resolution can lead to shenanigans (e.g. has been provided accurate and relevant information about the procedure and available alternatives, has sufficient understanding of the risks, benefits, consequences etc of the procedure and alternatives, patient is able to communicate their understanding and their choice unambiguously, and the decision is made free from undue influence). There also needs to be something addressing withdrawal of consent, as informed consent is NEVER set in stone.

As others have said, “killing of a patient” is not a good wording, and probably should be changed.

I agree with Bananastan that the word “operation” is inappropriate, this has a specific medical meaning that does not apply to most euthanasia methods. I would suggest maybe the word “procedure” instead.

Clause 1iii needs re-writing. Firstly, there’s little difference between ‘pain’ and ‘agony,’ you’re better off just dropping one. Also limiting euthanasia just to those in pain is needlessly restrictive, and denies access to many who need it. For example, there are numerous neurological conditions (e.g. Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis) where the most debilitating symptoms are not painful, but still debilitating. The focus should be on quality of life, not pain. I also think this clause needs a time limit, and many diseases have a long period where a good quality of life can be provided post diagnosis for a long time before symptoms become unmanageable. Might I suggest replacing this cause with something like:

“ the patient has a terminal, illness or an incurable progressive, or incurable illness that results in unbearable pain and/or agony causes, or is likely to cause within the next 2 years, significant reduction in quality of life that cannot be adequately managed and…”

Clause 3 should also provide protections for those who choose not to participate in euthanasia services. Also, the wording kind of implies the possibility of prosecuting people who have received euthanasia, which seems a bit nonsensical given that they’re dead.

Lastly, I’ll shove my oar in about clause 5. In my opinion it goes too far and not far enough at the same time. Personal autonomy should be an inviolable right, and no person should be compelled to do anything they are uncomfortable with. I actually think limiting this clause only to those with a boba fide moral objection misses a lot of people. There are an many medical people who are fully supportive of euthanasia, but personally are uncomfortable to be the ones to do it. They don’t have a moral objection (quite the reverse), but they don’t want to do it themselves, and that should be respected. Having said that, I also don’t think it’s sufficient that they simply direct patients to a service, as that leaves gaps where the patient may still not be able to access the service. I would suggest removing the “bona fide moral objection” segment, and simply state that no medical professional may be compelled to participate in euthanasia services, but if they choose not too, they must assist eligible patients to access these services.

Also, good luck with clause 2. While I personally agree, I think this might be a dealbreaker for a lot of nations.

[The Python]

"The lack of safeguards against undue pressure being brought to bear on individuals is also bad and should be changed. This is actually severely bad when one considers section 3iv which would prevent member states themselves from maintaining such safeguards.

3.iv has been changed to "implementing policies which are designed solely restrict access to euthanasia", but isn't that exactly what clause 4 is for?

Firstly, a definition of informed consent would go a long way, as leaving it undefined in the resolution can lead to shenanigans (e.g. has been provided accurate and relevant information about the procedure and available alternatives, has sufficient understanding of the risks, benefits, consequences etc of the procedure and alternatives, patient is able to communicate their understanding and their choice unambiguously, and the decision is made free from undue influence). There also needs to be something addressing withdrawal of consent, as informed consent is NEVER set in stone.

How's this: "the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the procedure, including the method of euthanasia, that can be withdrawn by the patient before they recieve euthanasia, and where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives, "

As others have said, “killing of a patient” is not a good wording, and probably should be changed.

Changed to "ending the life of a patient".

I agree with Bananastan that the word “operation” is inappropriate, this has a specific medical meaning that does not apply to most euthanasia methods. I would suggest maybe the word “procedure” instead.

Changed to procedure ig

Clause 1iii needs re-writing. Firstly, there’s little difference between ‘pain’ and ‘agony,’ you’re better off just dropping one. Also limiting euthanasia just to those in pain is needlessly restrictive, and denies access to many who need it. For example, there are numerous neurological conditions (e.g. Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis) where the most debilitating symptoms are not painful, but still debilitating. The focus should be on quality of life, not pain. I also think this clause needs a time limit, and many diseases have a long period where a good quality of life can be provided post diagnosis for a long time before symptoms become unmanageable. Might I suggest replacing this cause with something like:

“ the patient has a terminal, illness or an incurable progressive, or incurable illness that results in unbearable pain and/or agony causes, or is likely to cause within the next 2 years, significant reduction in quality of life that cannot be adequately managed and…”

I was going to discuss this with IA before making any changes, but he hasn't responded to my DM yet

Clause 3 should also provide protections for those who choose not to participate in euthanasia services.

Wouldn't that fit under Clause 4 as coercion to seek euthanasia?

Also, the wording kind of implies the possibility of prosecuting people who have received euthanasia, which seems a bit nonsensical given that they’re dead.

You can, however, prosecute their heirs or prosecute them before they recieve euthanasia

Lastly, I’ll shove my oar in about clause 5. In my opinion it goes too far and not far enough at the same time. Personal autonomy should be an inviolable right, and no person should be compelled to do anything they are uncomfortable with. I actually think limiting this clause only to those with a boba fide moral objection misses a lot of people. There are an many medical people who are fully supportive of euthanasia, but personally are uncomfortable to be the ones to do it. They don’t have a moral objection (quite the reverse), but they don’t want to do it themselves, and that should be respected.

The wording "bona fide" is designed to catch those who do not wish to perform euthanasia for a bad-faith reason. The wording has been changed, however, so it isn't necessarily just "moral" objectors.

Having said that, I also don’t think it’s sufficient that they simply direct patients to a service, as that leaves gaps where the patient may still not be able to access the service. I would suggest removing the “bona fide moral objection” segment, and simply state that no medical professional may be compelled to participate in euthanasia services, but if they choose not too, they must assist eligible patients to access these services.

It's been changed to "may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional assists their patients seeking euthanasia in recieving easily and readily accessible euthanasia services."

Also, good luck with clause 2. While I personally agree, I think this might be a dealbreaker for a lot of nations.

I mean, it's the main point of the proposal

[Xanthorrhoea]

Xanthorrhoea approves of the recent amendments, and continues to observe further amendments with interest. While our government is fully supportive of euthanasia, we acknowledge some of our citizens do not agree, and we remain concerned that this proposal does little to protect those with similar views in other nations.

OOC:
Looks great! I hope your co-author gets back to you soon

I should have been clearer about clause 3. I’m not worried that people will be forced into getting euthanasia, as you said, clause 4 covers that pretty well. I’m worried that people who disagree with euthanasia are still allowed to be discriminated against. Clause 3 has decent protections, so I thought including them in it would stop people being fired/persecuted etc because of their views on euthanasia. TBH this is probably covered already by some other civil rights resolution, so it’s probably all moot. Clause 3 just struck me as oddly one sided in giving strong protections to people who support euthanasia, but nothing to those who don’t.

[Swoulor]

This is insane, why on earth should we legalize what is effectively suicide, instead of improving mental healthcare and preventing the issue from coming in the first place, THIS is the best thing you got?, the nations who agree to this madness should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such a proposition, what would happen if we allow this, swats of pepole will commit suicide on a large scale for smaller things, first we legalize this madness, when will it stop??!

[The Python]

I should have been clearer about clause 3. I’m not worried that people will be forced into getting euthanasia, as you said, clause 4 covers that pretty well. I’m worried that people who disagree with euthanasia are still allowed to be discriminated against. Clause 3 has decent protections, so I thought including them in it would stop people being fired/persecuted etc because of their views on euthanasia. TBH this is probably covered already by some other civil rights resolution, so it’s probably all moot. Clause 3 just struck me as oddly one sided in giving strong protections to people who support euthanasia, but nothing to those who don’t.

I think penalties/discrimination against those who oppose euthanasia would fall under coercion.

[Bananaistan]

"[And] where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives" does not quite achieve what we want regarding appropriate safeguards and is merely the another way of saying "informed consent".

"Also section 3ii. Does this mean that heirs are perpetually exempt from all prosecution for all crimes?"

[The Python]

"Also section 3ii. Does this mean that heirs are perpetually exempt from all prosecution for all crimes?"

Oh, great point, thanks for pointing that out.

[The Python]

The title has been updated for reasons pointed out by Bananaistan in Discord, so thanks to them.

Before any change is made, how would this work as a replacement for 1.iii to include significant mental illnesses?

the patient has a terminal, incurable physical illness or an incurable mental illness that drastically reduces the patient's quality of life for the rest of their life,

[Separatist Peoples]

"We suggest the title be "Self-Yeeting Protocol".

"I would further propose the following changes:

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 legalisingthe alleged dangers of assisted suicide do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms, and

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

1. In this resolution, “assisted suicide” ismeans the ending of the life of a patient, when:
   
   1. the patient has provided verifiable , revocable informed consent to the procedure, including the method of assisted suicide, that can be withdrawn by the patient before they recieve assisted suicide, and where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives,

"Poor grammar resolved. Further, informed consent is itself inclusive of awareness of consequences and potential alternatives. Further, you can include language regarding revocation by simply using the term 'revocable'."

the procedure is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,

the patient has a terminal illness or anincurable illness that resultsresulting in unbearable pain and/or agony, and

"And/or is unnecessary jargon that means nothing and complicates your clause. Lose it. Also, you don't need to specify "illness" twice."

a medical professional assists in the procedure.

Member nations must provide offer free assisted suicide services to patients seeking it. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patientsseeking assisted suicide residing in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.

"The later phrase here is not necessary. It is implicit that patients not seeking such services needn't be provided those services nor access to them."

No member nation may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in assisted suicide in ways including but not limited to:

1. imposing higher taxes on those recieving receivingor assisting in assisted suicide, or the heirs thereof,
2. prosecuting persons, or the heirs thereof, solely for seeking, recievingreceiving or assisting in assisted suicide,
3. failing to provide equal protection before under the law to said persons, or
4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to assisted suicide.

No person, group of persons, or member nation may coerce a patient to seek assisted suicide.

A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be forced to perform assisted suicide, as long as if said professional assists their patients seeking assisted suicide in recieving receivingeasily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

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

"Your drafting includes a great deal of superfluous and unclear language. The fewer words you need to craft policy, the better."

[Old Hope]

reulting

[Separatist Peoples]

reulting

OOC: Thanks, I tried to code this while typing on my phone while bouncing my son. Good to catch errors.

[The Python]

"We suggest the title be "Self-Yeeting Protocol".

smh

Believing that any possible dangers resulting from a "slippery slope" in legalisingthe alleged dangers of assisted suicide do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms, and

Fixed.

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

Done, uh, a different version but basically the same.

Further, informed consent is itself inclusive of awareness of consequences and potential alternatives.

Not if creative non-compliers decide to play with definitions.

Further, you can include language regarding revocation by simply using the term 'revocable'."

Alright.

the patient has a terminal illness or anincurable illness that resultsresulting in unbearable pain and/or agony, and

"And/or is unnecessary jargon that means nothing and complicates your clause. Lose it. Also, you don't need to specify "illness" twice."

Fixed, though that part is likely going to get changed anyway.

Member nations must provide offer free assisted suicide services to patients

Uh, aren't "provide" and "offer" different things?

seeking it

Removed.

In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patientsseeking assisted suicide residing in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.

Fixed too.

1. imposing higher taxes on those recieving receivingor assisting in assisted suicide, or the heirs thereof,
2. prosecuting persons, or the heirs thereof, solely for seeking, recievingreceiving or assisting in assisted suicide,
3. failing to provide equal protection before under the law to said persons, or
4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to assisted suicide.

Thanks

A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be forced to perform assisted suicide, as long as if said professional assists their patients seeking assisted suicide in recieving receivingeasily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

Also fixed, thanks.

[Separatist Peoples]

Not if creative non-compliers decide to play with definitions.

"I can see no good faith interpretation that would so allow."

Uh, aren't "provide" and "offer" different things?

"Given that individuals not seeking euthanasia do not require its provision, I think offering is a better verb to use in the context of this proposal. We wish the ambassador the very best of luck with this upon submission."

[The Python]

"I can see no good faith interpretation that would so allow."

As if creative non-compliers would interpret GA law/act in good faith.

"Given that individuals not seeking euthanasia do not require its provision, I think offering is a better verb to use in the context of this proposal. We wish the ambassador the very best of luck with this upon submission."

Not really, I think "offer" (at least in the context of creative non-compliance) would include a nation lying about providing assisted suicide services as that would technically be "offering" them, just not "providing" them.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I can see no good faith interpretation that would so allow."

As if creative non-compliers would interpret GA law/act in good faith.

"Bad faith interpretation is not compliant with GAR#2. If nations are not compliant with GAR#2, enforcement action applies. If there was no such enforcement action, what would prevent nations from interpreting the original clause to mean what they want?"

Not really, I think "offer" (at least in the context of creative non-compliance) would include a nation lying about providing assisted suicide services as that would technically be "offering" them, just not "providing" them.

"Ambassador, this would not comport with any good faith interpretation of the term in the context of the rest of your proposal."