[PASSED] Access to Life-Ending Services

[Imperium Anglorum]

No member nation may implement policies that substantially restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will as per section 1, excluding valid health and safety concerns or provisions laid out in this resolution.

Perhaps consider something like the following:

Member nations may not implement policies restricting access to assisted suicide as defined in section 1 unless they can show that the restriction furthers an important government or state interest in health or safety using means substantially tailored for that interest.

[Apatosaurus]

No member nation may implement policies that substantially restrict access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will as per section 1, excluding valid health and safety concerns or provisions laid out in this resolution.

Perhaps consider something like the following:

Member nations may not implement policies restricting access to assisted suicide as defined in section 1 unless they can show that the restriction furthers an important government or state interest in health or safety using means substantially tailored for that interest.

Alright, done this:

Member nations may not implement policies restricting access to assisted suicide as defined in section 1 unless they can show that the restriction furthers an important government or state interest in health or safety using means substantially tailored for that interest, and excepting provisions laid out in this resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There were good objections by Sep and Wally on the Discord re the phrasing. I'll do some more thinking.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Bear in mind that in order to comply with section 5, member states will have to introduce some form of regulation or restriction to ensure that the person intending to end their life has not been coerced.

Also I think coerce is a strong word which does not fully capture all possible situations in which someone might bring undue pressure onto the person intending to end their lives. This should be changed.

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: Bear in mind that in order to comply with section 5, member states will have to introduce some form of regulation or restriction to ensure that the person intending to end their life has not been coerced.

Yep, that's the point :p

Also I think coerce is a strong word which does not fully capture all possible situations in which someone might bring undue pressure onto the person intending to end their lives. This should be changed.

As per the discussion on Discord, did this:

No person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure a patient to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide.

[Apatosaurus]

Bumpity bump?

[Apatosaurus]

Bumpity bumpity bump

[Mijukelie]

People should have the right to end their lives if they suffer excruciating life crippling pain, or are at the end of their lives and want to leave with dignity. When there is no longer any quality of life, it is a disservice to require people to continue living. There obviously would need to be laws in place that would prevent elderly from being killed by relatives that no longer wanted them as a burden. People should be in charge of their own existence and have the option to leave this world in a quick pain free way.

[Apatosaurus]

*bumps*

[Apatosaurus]

Bumpity bump

[WayNeacTia]

Bumpity bump

Until 285 is repealed, this is illegal for duplication, so why do you keep bumping it?

[Apatosaurus]

Bumpity bump

Until 285 is repealed, this is illegal for duplication, so why do you keep bumping it?

For feedback so that it is in a better state to submit when the repeal linked in the OP is submitted & (hopefully) passes.

[Outer Sparta]

Until 285 is repealed, this is illegal for duplication, so why do you keep bumping it?

For feedback so that it is in a better state to submit when the repeal linked in the OP is submitted & (hopefully) passes.

Is there news on that front? I know IA is working on it but there hasn't been any meaningful updates as of now.

[WayNeacTia]

Until 285 is repealed, this is illegal for duplication, so why do you keep bumping it?

For feedback so that it is in a better state to submit when the repeal linked in the OP is submitted & (hopefully) passes.

You’ve bumped it four times and haven’t had a single bite. Perhaps just let it sit and if IA decides to submit his repeal (He won’t announce it, he will just submit it out of the blue), maybe bump this at that time? Until then you are just bumping an illegal draft.

[Apatosaurus]

For feedback so that it is in a better state to submit when the repeal linked in the OP is submitted & (hopefully) passes.

Is there news on that front? I know IA is working on it but there hasn't been any meaningful updates as of now.

I'm not sure, actually, I've poked IA again though.

[WayNeacTia]

Is there news on that front? I know IA is working on it but there hasn't been any meaningful updates as of now.

I'm not sure, actually, I've poked IA again though.

It’s been six years. He already told you, that you could use his draft if he is named as co author.

[Eleutheri Gi]

This proposition has my full support. However, I find the bit about the fact that 'right-wingers' will oppose this unnecessary. Also, I believe that gentler wording is necessary. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with this proposition.

[Apatosaurus]

I'm not sure, actually, I've poked IA again though.

It’s been six years. He already told you, that you could use his draft if he is named as co author.

Actually, it's been much less than one year, let alone six.

This proposition has my full support. However, I find the bit about the fact that 'right-wingers' will oppose this unnecessary. Also, I believe that gentler wording is necessary. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with this proposition.

Got rid of that from the op, ig. I edited the preamble to get rid of some "stronger" wording, is it better now?

[Outer Sparta]

It’s been six years. He already told you, that you could use his draft if he is named as co author.

Actually, it's been much less than one year, let alone six.

When will you follow through and submit IA's draft and name him as co-author? Do you have any sort of timetable for that?

[Apatosaurus]

Actually, it's been much less than one year, let alone six.

When will you follow through and submit IA's draft and name him as co-author? Do you have any sort of timetable for that?

Honestly not sure, I want to make sure this is as hole-proof as possible before submitting it so I'd prefer to IA to submit the repeal when he thinks this is ready, but if that's not possible I might submit earlier.

[WayNeacTia]

It’s been six years. He already told you, that you could use his draft if he is named as co author.

Actually, it's been much less than one year, let alone six.

The original draft was put up in December of 2016, so five years I guess, far longer than you have been on the site. It was then bumped several times in that time without anything further happening, at which point it seems IA has given up on it and granted you permission to use it. Perhaps you should look at the time stamps of the posts next time? Until that repeal is submitted bumping an illegal resolution is pointless.

[Apatosaurus]

New draft posted, tried this for the Clause 6 (Now Clause 7) what do people think?

Member nations may not implement policies intended to restrict the ability of eligible patients to recieve assisted suicide as defined in section 1.

[Apatosaurus]

Member nations may not implement policies that significantly restrict the ability of eligible patients to recieve assisted suicide as defined in section 1, unless they show that the restriction significantly furthers an important government interest using the least restrictive means and means narrowly tailored to that interest.

As per discussion on the NSWA server, likely using this instead.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Member nations may not implement policies that significantly restrict the ability of eligible patients to recieve [recte receive] assisted suicide as defined in section 1, unless they show that the restriction significantly furthers an important government interest using the least restrictive means and means narrowly tailored to that interest.

As per discussion on the NSWA server, likely using this instead.

C Marcius Blythe. Correct your typographical error. You can simplify or amend this language:

No member nation may implement any policy which has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide unless that member nation can show that the restriction furthers a clearly stated, compelling, and practical state interest with narrowly tailored and least restrictive means.

Member nations plural is slightly different from a member nation. There is a presumption of consistent usage when a term is defined, so "as defined in section 1" is unnecessary. Moreover, the "significantly furthers" is not entirely necessary. Something which incidentally harms that right, while fulfilling the other portions of the clause (ie being narrowly tailored and the leave restrictive means re the state interest) probably ought to be permitted.

[SJUleLiAvlO]

As per discussion on the NSWA server, likely using this instead.

C Marcius Blythe. Correct your typographical error. You can simplify or amend this language:

No member nation may implement any policy which has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide unless that member nation can show that the restriction furthers a clearly stated, compelling, and practical state interest with narrowly tailored and least restrictive means.

Member nations plural is slightly different from a member nation. There is a presumption of consistent usage when a term is defined, so "as defined in section 1" is unnecessary. Moreover, the "significantly furthers" is not entirely necessary. Something which incidentally harms that right, while fulfilling the other portions of the clause (ie being narrowly tailored and the leave restrictive means re the state interest) probably ought to be permitted.

Fixed

EDIT: Sorry this is Apatosaurus, I forgot to switch puppets to post >_>