[DRAFT] Protection of euthanasia rights

[Magna-Parva]

We present the following draft to the General Assembly for consideration and criticism:

Protection of Euthanasia Rights
Proposed by Magna-Parva

---

The World Assembly,
Affirming its commitment to the protection of rights and freedoms,
Noting that humans are born free and have the right to bodily autonomy and control over their own lives,
And regarding the right to a dignified, voluntary death as natural, inherent, and inalienable,
Hereby enacts the following:
Definitions

1. euthanasia is the consensual administration of a fast-acting lethal drug by a licensed medical doctor in a safe environment, as requested by an informed and consenting patient;
2. an informed patient is a patient under medical care of sound mind who understands the process of euthanasia;
3. a consenting patient is a patient under medical care of sound mind who has requested euthanasia, has consented, and is consenting and volunteering up to the moment of death.

Mandates
Member states of the World Assembly have the right to manage their own laws and restrictions on euthanasia, provided they guarantee their citizens the following two basic rights:

1. Citizens who are experiencing intolerable suffering due to chronic, incurable physical illness have the right to request and be given euthanasia instead of palliative care.
2. Citizens who are reasonably expected to soon die of a terminal illness or of old age have the right to request and be given euthanasia instead of palliative care.

Code: Select all

The World Assembly,
Affirming its commitment to the protection rights and freedoms,
Noting that humans are born free and have the right to bodily autonomy and control over their own lives,
And regarding the right to a dignified, voluntary death as natural, inherent, and inalienable,
Hereby enacts the following:
[u]Definitions[/u]
[list=a]
[*] [i]euthanasia[/i] is the consensual administration of a fast-acting lethal drug by a licensed medical doctor in a safe environment, as requested by an informed and consenting patient;
[*] an [i]informed patient[/i] is a patient under medical care of sound mind who understands the process of euthanasia;
[*] a [i]consenting patient[/i] is a patient under medical care of sound mind who has [u]requested[/u] euthanasia, has consented, and is consenting and volunteering up to the moment of death.[/list]
[u]Mandates[/u]
Member states of the World Assembly have the right to manage their own laws and restrictions on euthanasia, provided they at the least guarantee their citizens the following two basic rights:
[list=1]
[*] Citizens who are experiencing intolerable suffering due to chronic, incurable physical illness have the right to request and be given euthanasia instead of palliative care.
[*] Citizens who are reasonably expected to soon die of a terminal illness or of old age have the right to request and be given euthanasia instead of palliative care.[/list]

We note that the two "basic rights" in the Mandates section are potentially overlapping. We are aware of this, but intend them to provide broad coverage of possible scenarios.

Signed,
Julian B. O'Rourke
World Assembly Ambassador of Magna-Parva
Foreign Office
712c Keel Street, New Sydney 33018, Magna-Parva

[Meraud]

Meraud does not criminalize suicide, but it does criminalize those assisting as murder.
Also, assuming "Reserved Powers" passes, this would conflict with domestic lawmaking.

[Zetaopalatopia]

This proposal has a better chance of passing if mandate is instead changed to less binding language requesting the availability of euthanasia, or decriminalizing euthanasia tourism.

Many theocratic nations I can see voting this down in it's current state.

[Spes Immo]

We spend millions annually on resources and efforts for campaigns that promote the value of life and suicide prevention—suicide which individuals might commit using their own hands—only to tell them at the "end of the race": "It’s okay, folks; we’ll help you die." Using the hands of others?

In both cases, the condition of unbearable suffering is a claim and a relative perception. Why is it that, in only one of these scenarios, we tell them that even if we are unable to alleviate their suffering, their life still holds value and is worth living?

Furthermore, why should this be a matter for the assembly of nations to deliberate rather than a purely internal decision, given the plurality of views on the subject and the fact that the consequences do not cross national borders?

Moreover, by including the elderly, wouldn't we be giving a green light to utilitarian genocide—allowing governments to rid themselves of "undesirables" and save on social security and healthcare costs after having drained everything these people produced over the years?

Here at Spes Immo, we do not tell our elderly and terminally ill that the dignity of their lives is worth less than that of a productive citizen, nor do we disregard the fact that they, too, were once productive. Suffering is inherent to life; while some forms can be avoided or mitigated, if we accept death as the solution for some instances of suffering, why not for all?

What we do here is criminalize any assistance provided with the intent to facilitate consensual killing—also known as euthanasia—subjecting the offender to the same penalties as those for inciting or aiding suicide, or, if the attempt succeeds, to the same penalties as homicide. A law such as the one proposed would explicitly impose a violation of our people's sovereignty.

[Flydale North]

This matter should be left up to individual nations.

[Meraud]

What we do here is criminalize any assistance provided with the intent to facilitate consensual killing—also known as euthanasia—subjecting the offender to the same penalties as those for inciting or aiding suicide, or, if the attempt succeeds, to the same penalties as homicide. A law such as the one proposed would explicitly impose a violation of our people's sovereignty.

Based

[Magna-Parva]

Meraud does not criminalize suicide, but it does criminalize those assisting as murder.
Also, assuming "Reserved Powers" passes, this would conflict with domestic lawmaking.

So Meraud would rather citizens with intolerable suffering who wish to die to either suffer quietly or attempt to take their own lives rather messily, rather than undergo a safe medical procedure? We find this a fascinating perspective, but hardly one we endorse.

"Reserved Powers" is, we feel, the epitome of NatSov overreach deliberately designed to hamstring the actual purpose of the General Assembly. We have voted against it. If it passes, we will examine all its clauses carefully and produce a second draft of this draft compliant with its silliness.

This proposal has a better chance of passing if mandate is instead changed to less binding language requesting the availability of euthanasia, or decriminalizing euthanasia tourism.

Many theocratic nations I can see voting this down in it's current state.

Thank you, we will produce an alternative draft of this resolution which is slightly "lighter". That said, theocratic nations and abusive dictatorships will always vote against human rights, so we do not believe there is much point tailoring this resolution to their objections.

We spend millions annually on resources and efforts for campaigns that promote the value of life and suicide prevention—suicide which individuals might commit using their own hands—only to tell them at the "end of the race": "It’s okay, folks; we’ll help you die." Using the hands of others?

In both cases, the condition of unbearable suffering is a claim and a relative perception. Why is it that, in only one of these scenarios, we tell them that even if we are unable to alleviate their suffering, their life still holds value and is worth living?

Furthermore, why should this be a matter for the assembly of nations to deliberate rather than a purely internal decision, given the plurality of views on the subject and the fact that the consequences do not cross national borders?

Moreover, by including the elderly, wouldn't we be giving a green light to utilitarian genocide—allowing governments to rid themselves of "undesirables" and save on social security and healthcare costs after having drained everything these people produced over the years?

Here at Spes Immo, we do not tell our elderly and terminally ill that the dignity of their lives is worth less than that of a productive citizen, nor do we disregard the fact that they, too, were once productive. Suffering is inherent to life; while some forms can be avoided or mitigated, if we accept death as the solution for some instances of suffering, why not for all?

What we do here is criminalize any assistance provided with the intent to facilitate consensual killing—also known as euthanasia—subjecting the offender to the same penalties as those for inciting or aiding suicide, or, if the attempt succeeds, to the same penalties as homicide. A law such as the one proposed would explicitly impose a violation of our people's sovereignty.

We thank the delegate from Spes Immo for their melodramatic and delusional speech, but kindly suggest they take their theatric and creative flair elsewhere. All we are proposing is to give citizens of free countries control over something that is most intimately theirs: their own life. The draft, which we strongly suspect you have not even read, is worded around voluntary consent, not "utilitarian genocide". In Magna-Parva, we believe that the dignity of all lives is equal, and all citizens are eligible for assisted suicide, if they go through a process of mental health checks, therapy, and paperwork. We would want to force this approach onto all nations, so we merely set out to very basic minimums to protect the freedom of those who most often choose medical assistance in dying; hence the inclusion of the elderly.
"Suffering is inherent to life; while some forms can be avoided or mitigated, if we accept death as the solution for some instances of suffering, why not for all? " This is an individual choice, barring your rhetorical theatrics, and we would prefer if governments did not try to dictate to their citizens that their suffering is not, in fact, intolerable. We are committed to the protection of individual freedom over individual lives, free of the kind of hysterical illogic presented by your delegate, whose voice we will pay no further attention to.

This matter should be left up to individual nations.

To clarify: do you think that the GA should not legislate to protect euthanasia freedoms specifically, or do you feel that it should not legislate on rights and freedoms at all?

Thank you for your comments, although all but one were totally unhelpful.
Signed,
Julian B. O'Rourke
World Assembly Ambassador of Magna-Parva
Foreign Office
712c Keel Street, New Sydney 33018, Magna-Parva

[Meraud]

So Meraud would rather citizens with intolerable suffering who wish to die to either suffer quietly or attempt to take their own lives rather messily, rather than undergo a safe medical procedure? We find this a fascinating perspective, but hardly one we endorse.

How can a medical procedure that results in death be "safe"?

[Saint Halo]

Not interested

[Magna-Parva]

So Meraud would rather citizens with intolerable suffering who wish to die to either suffer quietly or attempt to take their own lives rather messily, rather than undergo a safe medical procedure? We find this a fascinating perspective, but hardly one we endorse.

How can a medical procedure that results in death be "safe"?

How can a medical procedure that results in someone's limb being removed be "safe"? You see about how clever that argument is?
A medical procedure that does not have unintended, undesired, harmful consequences is safe.
You might say that death is always a bad outcome. Not in the case of euthanasia, since it is definitionally desired.

Not interested

Thank you for expressing your total lack of interest! We really appreciate your insightful feedback! We ourselves would like to express our total lack of interest in ever hearing from your ambassador again!

Signed,
Julian B. O'Rourke

[Zetaopalatopia]

We are of the opinion that any medical procedure be in the intent of continued life up to and including in perpetuity should those seeking such treatment wish and the means are available. Assisted suicide is the antithesis of the previous opinion. While I agree with ones right to self termination I do not believe a doctor should be the one to administer. Instead I propose that lethal injections be made available over the counter after psychiatric evaluation and designated self injection sites be maintained or allow one to self administer in the comfort of their own home.

[Saint Halo]

Not interested

Thank you for expressing your total lack of interest! We really appreciate your insightful feedback! We ourselves would like to express our total lack of interest in ever hearing from your ambassador again!

Signed,
Julian B. O'Rourke

I'm glad we could find some mutual ground Mr. O'Rourke.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

OOC: My friend, while I fully understand the logic and the reasoning and experiences of people who choose assisted suicide, trying to normalise the practice is at least mildly insidious. If the reason for suicide is pain, then in the long run the solution is to develop more potent pain killers. If the reason is severe and irreversible disability, then in the long run the solution is to continue treatment to determine what yields better efficacy and to develop newer treatments. Normalising suicide stunts both processes. If a few hundred patients of a certain disease chooses suicide too soon, they may condemn the next hundred patients of the same disease to suicide too, due to the loss of research. Some diseases occur very rarely and so the opportunity to properly study them and to develop treatment and to prevent future suffering and to possibly develop a cure should be highly valued. In any case, assisted suicide should be legal but very limited circumstance, not made regular.

Far more importantly, this is very clearly not a transboundary issue as required by GA#3 clause 1(a), there is no precedent in international law for this subject matter.

[Kshemarashtram]

I see you have defined "informed patient" and "consenting patient", but do not use them in your mandates. I suggest you replace "citizens" in your mandates with "informed patients", thus affirming that it may be sought only by individuals of sound mind who are fully aware of the procedure and its impact. (Something like "informed patients who are suffering &c. have the right to request euthanasia... consenting patients have the right to be given euthanasia". I'm currently not lucid enough to frame it perfectly, but I hope you get my point.)

"Reserved Powers" gives the GA the right to intervene in issues regarding fundamental rights, but those rights have not been defined yet, so we would need to wait until such rights are defined to be assured whether this falls within the scope of the GA or not.

While I acknowledge the sensitivity of this issue, and how it is usually left to national discretion, I honestly don't see anything wrong with administering a safe cessation of life to an individual as long as he is of sound mind, fully aware about the procedure, and offers voluntary consent. But while Kshemarashtram does offer euthanasia services to consenting patients, I'd suggest waiting until the enshrinement of fundamental rights to decide whether this falls within the scope of the GA or not.

Regards
Vikrama Deshabandhu
Dictator of Kshemarashtram

[Kshemarashtram]

OOC: My friend, while I fully understand the logic and the reasoning and experiences of people who choose assisted suicide, trying to normalise the practice is at least mildly insidious. If the reason for suicide is pain, then in the long run the solution is to develop more potent pain killers. If the reason is severe and irreversible disability, then in the long run the solution is to continue treatment to determine what yields better efficacy and to develop newer treatments. Normalising suicide stunts both processes. If a few hundred patients of a certain disease chooses suicide too soon, they may condemn the next hundred patients of the same disease to suicide too, due to the loss of research. Some diseases occur very rarely and so the opportunity to properly study them and to develop treatment and to prevent future suffering and to possibly develop a cure should be highly valued. In any case, assisted suicide should be legal but very limited circumstance, not made regular.

Not the OP. I agree that nations should ideally try to develop more potent medicine and better treatments, but I also think that, in case of a lack thereof, the individual's desire for a safe departure should not be denied. I think the individual's desire should take precedence over the usefulness they might offer for research purposes. This proposal just gives patients the right to seek it, but I agree that it should ideally be very rare.

Far more importantly, this is very clearly not a transboundary issue as required by GA#3 clause 1(a), there is no precedent in international law for this subject matter.

GA#3 does provide for intervention in case of fundamental rights, but we would need to wait until such rights are defined to decide whether this falls within the scope of the GA.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

IC: GA#3 World Assembly Governance Standards clause 1(a) admits three grounds for binding action, being "a collective action problem that member nations cannot adequately address through independent domestic action", "fundamental rights that transcend national sovereignty", or "some other transboundary concern". This draft pleads the second, and it does so in its own preamble, which calls the right to a dignified and voluntary death "natural, inherent, and inalienable". That is where it must be met, and that is where it fails.

Mandates 1 and 2 establish not a liberty but a right to "request and be given euthanasia", and Definition (a) requires administration "by a licensed medical doctor", so the obligation falling upon an adoptive member is to produce a doctor who will perform the act rather than merely to stand aside. A liberty not to be prevented from ending one's own life is at least arguable as a right which transcends sovereignty, but a claim upon the state to supply the person who carries it out is a different thing altogether, and the draft nowhere shows that the second follows from the first.

The remaining two grounds are closed to the author. The delegation from Magna-Parva has legalised this practice at home without recourse to this Assembly, which is itself proof that no collective action problem arises, and the consequences of a member's law on the end of life fall within that member's own borders, as the delegation from Spes Immo has already observed. Clause 3 completes the matter, since "in all areas of policy which do not have explicit, active resolutions or clauses governing them, it is to be presumed that the World Assembly reserves governance of this issue to individual members", and no resolution now in force governs medical practice or the criminal law.

Clause 1(c) requires that "among the available policy approaches capable of achieving the resolution's objective, the approach chosen is the least burdensome on the domestic governance of member nations". The delegation from Zetaopalatopia proposed non-binding language on availability, or alternatively the decriminalisation of travel undertaken for the procedure, and the author has undertaken to produce a lighter draft, which is itself an acknowledgement that such an approach exists.

If Ambassador O'Rourke of the delegation from Magna-Parva wishes this proposal to succeed, and to command our support in particular, its case must be argued in legally correct terms rather than moral ones, because moral conviction does not answer clause 1(a), and the mandate held against adoptive member states must be lightened. That will require abandoning the language of universal and inalienable euthanasia rights, since it is that language which commits the draft to ground it cannot hold. What we would support is an instrument which asks only that adoptive member states decriminalise assisted suicide, which leaves each member free to determine the availability of the practice within its own jurisdiction, and which imposes no duty of provision upon any government unwilling to provide.

[Greater North-America]

Totally and unequivocally opposed on all grounds.

However, I will argue with one point.

Citizens who are experiencing intolerable suffering due to chronic, incurable physical illness have the right to request and be given euthanasia instead of palliative care.

What constitutes intolerable suffering? I know people who consider a stubbed toe intolerable. Chronic illness? What, are we to kill people for having arthritis? Incurable? How shall a cure ever be developed if everyone who has that illness is dead, leaving no patients to study? They have the right to request euthanasia? They have the right to ask someone to kill them? How is this any more ethical than saying "I have the right to be shot in a dark alleyway because I asked the chap to kill me."? They have the right not only to request their own death, but to be given the means to facilitate it? Am I to understand that doctors do not have the right to deny that request? Am I to understand that doctors are to be not merely permitted (which would be horrendous enough) but actually required to execute death upon their patients? "Oh, well, they asked for it!" Is this not a voluntary execution? Does not this proposal even specify that euthanasia shall be conducted using lethal drugs, presumably the same lethal drugs used to kill violent criminals? Why lethal drugs? If you're going to execute death upon a person ("oh! but they want it!") why use chemicals? Why not use a rope or a firing squad? Why not use gas chambers and ovens? How can it be a right if it isn't right? You say they must be of a sound mind. You speak well, but is it not so that even those who are of a sound mind, especially those who are old or debilitated, can be easily manipulated, easily influenced? Why, what is to prevent an elderly man with a severe case of the gout from being talked into killing himself by a machinating family member, perhaps with an eye to a favorable inheritance? Besides, what measures shall be taken to ensure they are truly in a sound mind? Perhaps they shall be depressed on account of their condition, or struck by sudden melancholy upon the receipt of bad news. And what, shall they be killed within the hour because they request it? What if you gave them a day, two days, a week, a month, a year to think it over? What if you kill someone, subject them to a voluntary self execution, a felo de se, who would perhaps choose to live if given the choice on another day? But this proposal doesn't even make provision for a screening period. Even if it did I would still oppose it. But perhaps, I have drifted in my thoughts and spoken at greater length than I intended, and so take my leave.
—John Curt, Delegate USNA

[Spes Immo]

...free of the kind of hysterical illogic presented by your delegate, whose voice we will pay no further attention to.

Fortunately, there are still millions of nations with whom we can freely discuss this topic, since—as we have seen—that response (common among most of those who disagreed here) perfectly reflects the type of diplomacy Magna-Parva employs: ignoring dissent. They treat their proposal for a "right to euthanasia" as an axiom from which everyone ought to start, even though there is no actual consensus on the matter—and yet, it has been amply demonstrated that there is nothing stopping nations from freely adopting such a policy if they wish.

So, instead of trying to impose this on other nations, why don't they simply improve their "euthanasia tourism" campaign?

[Magna-Parva]

OOC: My friend, while I fully understand the logic and the reasoning and experiences of people who choose assisted suicide, trying to normalise the practice is at least mildly insidious. If the reason for suicide is pain, then in the long run the solution is to develop more potent pain killers. If the reason is severe and irreversible disability, then in the long run the solution is to continue treatment to determine what yields better efficacy and to develop newer treatments. Normalising suicide stunts both processes. If a few hundred patients of a certain disease chooses suicide too soon, they may condemn the next hundred patients of the same disease to suicide too, due to the loss of research. Some diseases occur very rarely and so the opportunity to properly study them and to develop treatment and to prevent future suffering and to possibly develop a cure should be highly valued. In any case, assisted suicide should be legal but very limited circumstance, not made regular.

OOC: I appreciate your comments, but I reject the assertion that the introduction of basic legislation such as this – which is based off the successful Canadian model for M.A.I.D.– is "normalizing suicide" and is some radical, insidious practice. I am aghast at the prospect of suicide and would not want to encourage it in any way. But I do regard the things set out in this bill as a fundamental right, which is why I am advocating for them, just as a free speech advocate vehemently defends free speech, even if the speech under controversy is distasteful or downright horrible. Perhaps because I see the end of my own natural life as being with M.A.I.D. rather than some malignant disease I have a more emotional view of the matter, given that my choice would be outlawed in so many countries.

IC: We have considered your commentary, and are in the process of preparing a more general draft, which we will carefully check against the NatSov-enforced provisions mentioned by the delegates from The Galactic Supremacy and Kshemarashtram. Our position on NatSov-written regulations hampering the power of the General Assembly has already been made sufficiently clear, and we will be exploring collaborations with like-minded nations to liberate the General Assembly from this control. My senior Mr O'Rourke is not currently available for comment, as he is taking a few days of leave, but be assured that the Magna-Parvan Foreign Office is working hard to bring this matter to a satisfactory resolution for all nations.

Signed,
Sasha MacKinnon,
Deputy World Assembly Delegate

[Croblade]

While well-meaning in principle, I fail to see how anything that secures the right for euthanasia shall pass in the current landscape of GA affairs, given the touchy subject matter.

[Kshemarashtram]

What constitutes intolerable suffering? I know people who consider a stubbed toe intolerable. Chronic illness? What, are we to kill people for having arthritis? Incurable? How shall a cure ever be developed if everyone who has that illness is dead, leaving no patients to study? They have the right to request euthanasia? They have the right to ask someone to kill them? How is this any more ethical than saying "I have the right to be shot in a dark alleyway because I asked the chap to kill me."? They have the right not only to request their own death, but to be given the means to facilitate it? Am I to understand that doctors do not have the right to deny that request? Am I to understand that doctors are to be not merely permitted (which would be horrendous enough) but actually required to execute death upon their patients? "Oh, well, they asked for it!" Is this not a voluntary execution? Does not this proposal even specify that euthanasia shall be conducted using lethal drugs, presumably the same lethal drugs used to kill violent criminals? Why lethal drugs? If you're going to execute death upon a person ("oh! but they want it!") why use chemicals? Why not use a rope or a firing squad? Why not use gas chambers and ovens? How can it be a right if it isn't right? You say they must be of a sound mind. You speak well, but is it not so that even those who are of a sound mind, especially those who are old or debilitated, can be easily manipulated, easily influenced? Why, what is to prevent an elderly man with a severe case of the gout from being talked into killing himself by a machinating family member, perhaps with an eye to a favorable inheritance? Besides, what measures shall be taken to ensure they are truly in a sound mind? Perhaps they shall be depressed on account of their condition, or struck by sudden melancholy upon the receipt of bad news. And what, shall they be killed within the hour because they request it? What if you gave them a day, two days, a week, a month, a year to think it over? What if you kill someone, subject them to a voluntary self execution, a felo de se, who would perhaps choose to live if given the choice on another day? But this proposal doesn't even make provision for a screening period. Even if it did I would still oppose it. But perhaps, I have drifted in my thoughts and spoken at greater length than I intended, and so take my leave.
—John Curt, Delegate USNA

Voluntary consent is the key. The proposal does not permit nations to just kill citizens experiencing "intolerable suffering" as defined by the nation, but only if citizens willingly consent to it in intolerable circumstances. It is fatuous to claim that citizens would seek euthanasia for a stubbed toe.

But you make a good point about doctors being forced to perform such a procedure. In my view, while hospitals may be allowed to offer euthanasia, no doctor should be forced to perform it. So perhaps the mandate needs to be a bit milder, and not mandate that all citizens MUST be given euthanasia when they request it. I also think deliberately abetting an individual to end their life should be considered a crime, and strict punishments should be imposed on anyone guilty of it. I also think there should be a minimum time period rather than administering it as soon as the patient requests it, considering they may be making such a request due to a brief bout of despondency, and might not have made such a request another time. So yeah, the author may make changes accordingly in the draft.

Honestly, considering the sensitivity of the issue, I now think it's justified to just leave it to the discretion of member nations, for the sake of international cooperation, considering it's not some major breach of rights.

[Meraud]

...which is based off the successful Canadian model for M.A.I.D...

Understood, just don't expect the majority of the community to embrace that line of thinking.

[Urcea]

Under no circumstance could Urcea ever consent to this legislation, which is an incredible overreach and would define as a "right" a policy choice which we find to be reprehensible. We will never vote in favor this, give it our support to reach the floor, or adopt it if passed.

[Greater North-America]

And regarding the right to a dignified, voluntary death as natural, inherent, and inalienable,

"A LAW OF NATURE, (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved."—Thomas Hobbes; Leviathan, ch. 14

[Magna-Parva]

And regarding the right to a dignified, voluntary death as natural, inherent, and inalienable,

"A LAW OF NATURE, (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved."—Thomas Hobbes; Leviathan, ch. 14

Ah yes, because we all know that political theory on liberty ended in 1651.

I've seen corporate toilet paper that's more robust than this argument.