NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT]Access to Life-Ending Services

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Apatosaurus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 133
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

[DRAFT]Access to Life-Ending Services

Postby Apatosaurus » Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:49 pm

Consider this a warning that right-wingers will oppose this. Replacement for when this inevitably gets submitted and (hopefully) passes (note: IA has given permission for me to submit that if he is unable to).

self-yeeting protocol

The General Assembly,

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

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

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. In this resolution, “assisted suicide” is the ending of the life of a patient, when:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable, revocable and informed consent on their own free will, to the procedure and method thereof (where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives),
    2. the procedure is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,
    3. the patient has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces the patient's quality of life, and
    4. a medical professional assists in the procedure.
  2. Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to patients. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, such that a substantial burden to quality of life, time or finances to the patient would otherwise be posed, member nations must arrange and pay for patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.
  3. No member nation may discriminate against persons recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide (referred to as "said persons"), in ways including but not limited to by:
    1. discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them, or
    2. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.
  4. Member nations are prohibited from prosecuting persons for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.
  5. No person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure a patient to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide.
  6. 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.
  7. A medical professional that publicly communicates a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide in advance, may not be required to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

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


The General Assembly,

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

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

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. In this resolution, “assisted suicide” is the ending of the life of a patient, when:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable, revocable and informed consent to the procedure and method thereof (where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to), all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives,
    2. the procedure is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,
    3. the patient has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces the patient's quality of life, and
    4. a medical professional assists in the procedure.
  2. Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to patients. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, such that a substantial burden to quality of life, time or finances to the patient would otherwise be posed, member nations must arrange and pay for patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.
  3. No member nation may discriminate against persons recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide (referred to as "said persons"), in ways including but not limited to by:
    1. discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them,
    2. prosecuting said persons for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed, or
    3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.
  4. No person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure a patient to seek, recieve or undergo assisted suicide.
  5. Member nations are prohibited from implementing policies with the sole or main intent of restricting access to assisted suicide for eligible patients seeking it on their free will.
  6. A medical professional that publically communicates a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide in advance, may not be required to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

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

The General Assembly,

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

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

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. In this resolution, “assisted suicide” is the ending of the life of a patient, when:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable, revocable and informed consent to the procedure, including the method thereof, where the patient is fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences and any possible alternatives,
    2. the procedure is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,
    3. the patient has an incurable medical condition, whether mental or physical, that directly causes permanent suffering or drastically and permanently reduces the patient's quality of life,
    4. a medical professional assists in the procedure.
  2. Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to patients. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients in those areas to travel to a clinic that provides assisted suicide services.
  3. No member nation may discriminate against persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including but not limited to:
    1. imposing higher taxes solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide,
    2. prosecuting persons solely for recieving or seeking assisted suicide, being a heir of a recipient of assisted suicide, assisting in assisted suicide, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including using these as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.
    3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons, or
    4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to assisted suicide.
  4. No person, group of persons, or member nation may coerce a patient to seek assisted suicide.
  5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be forced to perform assisted suicide, if and only if said professional refers their patients seeking assisted suicide to easily and readily accessible assisted suicide services.

Co-authored by [nation=long]Imperium Anglorum[/nation]
Last edited by Apatosaurus on Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:35 pm, edited 55 times in total.
Card farmer, WA fenda and filthy cosmo|WA Ambassador: Ambrose Scott|Go admire my factbook and upvote! He or they pronouns.
fenda nations always deserve banjection - Evil Cub
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort. - Altmoras
Diagrams of urine were not what I expected to find in NSGP today, but perhaps my expectations were too high - Refuge Isle
SEASON T*REE!

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:51 pm

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, and

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 ending of the life of a patient, when:
    1. 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,
    2. the procedure is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,
    3. the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in unbearable pain and/or agony, and
    4. a medical professional assists in the procedure.
  2. Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients seeking it. 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 nation may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:
    1. imposing higher taxes on those recieving or assisting in euthanasia, or the heirs thereof,
    2. prosecuting persons, or the heirs thereof, solely for seeking, recieving or assisting in euthanasia,
    3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons, or
    4. implementing policies which are designed solely to restrict access to euthanasia.
  4. No person, group of persons, or member nation may coerce a patient to seek euthanasia.
  5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide objection against performing euthanasia 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.

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

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, including the method used in the operation,
    2. the operation is fast and free from extreme pain or agony,
    3. the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in unbearable pain and/or agony, and
    4. a medical professional assists in the operation.
  2. Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients seeking it. 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 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, or the heirs thereof,
    2. prosecuting persons, or the heirs thereof, who receive or assist in euthanasia,
    3. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons, or
    4. implementing policies which restrict access to euthanasia.
  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]

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,

Hereby:
  1. Defines “euthanasia” as the killing of a patient, where:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
    2. the operation is completely painless,
    3. the patient has an incurable terminal illness, and
    4. the operation is assisted by a medical professional,
  2. Requires that member states provide euthanasia services that are free for the patient and paid for by the government of said member nations;
  3. Mandates that member states provide free and government-paid travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services if euthanasia services are not accessible nearby;
  4. Bans any government discrimination or penalties against recipients or the heirs thereof, the families of recipients of or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, inculding but not limited to discrimination in tax,
  5. Enforces that member states ban any form of coercion, whether by other persons or the government, for a patient to seek euthanasia, and
  6. Clarifies that any medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia as long as they direct the patient to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

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

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 outweight the right to die,

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

Hereby:
  1. Defines “euthanasia” as the killing of a patient, where:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
    2. the operation is completely painless,
    3. the patient has an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and
    4. is assisted by a medical professional,
  2. Requires that member nations of the World Assembly, provide euthanasia services that are free for the patient and paid for by the government of said member nations;
  3. Mandates that member nations of the World Assembly provide free and government-paid travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services if euthanasia services are not accessible nearby;
  4. Bans any government discrimination or penalties against recipients or the heirs thereof, the families of recipients of or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, inculding but not limited to discrimination in tax; and
  5. Clarifies that any medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia as long as they direct the patient to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

Co-authored by [nation=long]Imperium Anglorum[/nation]
Last edited by The Python on Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:18 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12949
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:58 pm

If you make a resolution on abortion, would you put [PRO-LIFERS WILL OPPOSE THIS]?

First glance, should be a good replacement for the resolution IA will repeal.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Hulldom
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 400
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:00 pm

"This measure has our full support, Ambassador. However, we would suggest less vulgar language in the "Believing" clause than the 'right to die'. And I would use this alternative wording in the 'noting' clause as well."

"My preferred formulation would be "the right to end one's life on one's own terms" or something approximating that."

OOC: This is a topic that I honestly have a lot of trouble reconciling. As someone who fervently believes in a God, and believes further that the act of taking a life, even one's own, is at best a tragedy and at worst a sin, it's hard to really get behind "right to die" legislation. That being said, I'm also someone who believes in free will and that if someone is in such pain that their life is unbearable or has simply decided that they stand no chance of ever feeling relief commensurate with living a "normal" life that it should be in one's remit to decide to end their own life.

It's not really mental gymnastics but rather to say, and the same on views with abortion and other things, that we all meet our makers and my support for policies can do as they wish are one and the same. If the act of taking one's own life when one is, for instance, suffering from terminal cancer is a noxious offense to the Almighty we'll find that out; if it's not, we lose nothing. And I rather don't believe the Almighty will sanction us for simply agreeing with a policy if we don't act on that belief. (For example, a person may believe that robbing the elderly in Nigerian prince schemes is a good thing because of the financial gain accrued to them, but we don't sanction them until they act on that belief.)

Tl;dr: In the rather infamous words of Pope Francis (albeit in reference to LGBTQ+ people): "who am I to judge?".

EDIT: Rather ironic I was listening to the Introit and Kyrie from Mozart's Requiem while writing this post up, eh?
Last edited by Hulldom on Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:07 pm

Hulldom wrote:"This measure has our full support, Ambassador. However, we would suggest less vulgar language in the "Believing" clause than the 'right to die'. And I would use this alternative wording in the 'noting' clause as well."

"My preferred formulation would be "the right to end one's life on one's own terms" or something approximating that."

Done.

EDIT:
Outer Sparta wrote:If you make a resolution on abortion, would you put [PRO-LIFERS WILL OPPOSE THIS]?

Yes, because I can and felt like it. (assuming it is pro-abortion :P)
Last edited by The Python on Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hulldom
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 400
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Hulldom » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:09 pm

The Python wrote:
Hulldom wrote:"This measure has our full support, Ambassador. However, we would suggest less vulgar language in the "Believing" clause than the 'right to die'. And I would use this alternative wording in the 'noting' clause as well."

"My preferred formulation would be "the right to end one's life on one's own terms" or something approximating that."

Done.

You don't need the "unbearable agony" bit on the end of that given what you define in 1. "the right to end one's life on one's own terms" will do.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
Views expressed not those of any region I'm involved in (especially TNP) unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:10 pm

Hulldom wrote:
The Python wrote:Done.

You don't need the "unbearable agony" bit on the end of that given what you define in 1. "the right to end one's life on one's own terms" will do.

Ok then

User avatar
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 187
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:48 pm

“I’m quite bored today, so I’ll point out that combining clauses 1 and iv does not form a complete sentence “Defines “euthanasia” as the killing of a patient, where … is assisted by a medical professional””
I say dumb things sometimes. Sorry.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:51 pm

What is "informed consent"? Informed how? I assume verifiable is modifying consent.

Also, is clause iii necessary? Could people not just...want to die in a painless way?

Member nations of the World Assembly is filler. Just use member states.
Last edited by Minskiev on Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:58 pm

Flying Eagles wrote:“I’m quite bored today, so I’ll point out that combining clauses 1 and iv does not form a complete sentence “Defines “euthanasia” as the killing of a patient, where … is assisted by a medical professional””

Fixed :P

Minskiev wrote:What is "informed consent"? Informed how? I assume verifiable is modifying consent.


Informed as in the patient is aware that they are consenting to euthanasia.

Minskiev wrote:Also, is clause iii necessary? Could people not just...want to die in a painless way?

Yes, it's necessary (so that it isn't abused). I did make it more broad by changing it just to "the patient has an incurable terminal illness".

Minskiev wrote:Member nations of the World Assembly is filler. Just use member states.

Sure
Last edited by The Python on Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Deacarsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1302
Founded: May 12, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

[RIGHTWINGERS WILL OPPOSE THIS] Access to Euthanasia

Postby Deacarsia » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:00 pm

You are quite right. I am a right-winger, and I strongly oppose this proposal.
Síc enim Deus díléxit mundum, ut Fílium suum únigenitum daret: ut omnis quí crédit in eum, nón pereat, sed habeat vítam æternam.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:03 pm

The Python wrote:
Minskiev wrote:What is "informed consent"? Informed how? I assume verifiable is modifying consent.


Informed as in the patient is aware that they are consenting to euthanasia.


...that's what consent is? Provided it's really the patient that's consenting.

Minskiev wrote:Also, is clause iii necessary? Could people not just...want to die in a painless way?

Yes, it's necessary (so that it isn't abused). I did make it more broad by changing it just to "the patient has an incurable terminal illness".


How would it be abused? Provided the patient consents, I don't see an issue.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:08 pm

Minskiev wrote:
The Python wrote:
Informed as in the patient is aware that they are consenting to euthanasia.


...that's what consent is? Provided it's really the patient that's consenting.

What happens if, for example, the patient says that it's okay without knowing what euthanasia even is...

Minskiev wrote:
Yes, it's necessary (so that it isn't abused). I did make it more broad by changing it just to "the patient has an incurable terminal illness".


How would it be abused? Provided the patient consents, I don't see an issue.


We probably shouldn't be providing free euthanasia if the patient is perfectly healthy for example.

Deacarsia wrote:You are quite right. I am a right-winger, and I strongly oppose this proposal.

Cope & seethe :P

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:13 pm

The Python wrote:
Minskiev wrote:
...that's what consent is? Provided it's really the patient that's consenting.

What happens if, for example, the patient says that it's okay without knowing what euthanasia even is...


Ah, I think I misinterpreted. But my original point stands that that whole bit's unclear.

Minskiev wrote:
How would it be abused? Provided the patient consents, I don't see an issue.


We probably shouldn't be providing free euthanasia if the patient is perfectly healthy for example.


Why not?
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Iupatia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Jul 01, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Iupatia » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:30 pm

Governments must not be required to provide free euthanasia services, because a government can have a moral objection just like a doctor.

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:48 pm

Iupatia wrote:Governments must not be required to provide free euthanasia services, because a government can have a moral objection just like a doctor.

Image


After discussing with IA, (un)fortunately Minskiev's suggestion of removing 1.iii has been declined. An active clause has also been added requiring that member-states ban coercion to seek euthanasia.
Last edited by The Python on Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sylh Alanor
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 182
Founded: May 10, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sylh Alanor » Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:29 pm

I continue to find the trend of including clauses about doctors with 'bona fide moral objections' very strange. I found it strange when it was included with the abortion bill due to the fact that not just any doctor is going to be faced with providing abortion services to a patient, and I find it odd here for different reasons.

I think it would be more understandable in this proposal, if not for the inclusion of clause 3. Clause 3, if I'm interpreting it correctly, states that if euthanasia services are not accessible nearby (implying there is a department or a speciality where a medical professional would be tasked to deal with this), that the patient be transported to a clinic that does have an available euthanasia service. If that is correctly interpreted, then there should be no situation where a doctor who would be tasked with providing a euthanasia service would suddenly have a bona fide moral objection. It should be a specialised service, much like an ob-gyn or family planning doctor would provide an abortion so that the patient would be in educated hands.

I also wonder what you think about people with extreme depression who have tried all the normal treatments and cannot find anything that works. Or someone who is elderly and is in chronic pain, but is not suffering from an incurable terminal illness other than time. I don't know that they need to be included, but I'm interested in why the limit of this proposal is an incurable terminal illness.

Those bits aside, I think this is a great start for a proposal and I can see myself supporting it in the event that the linked repeal goes through. My biggest issue is the purposeful baiting of conservative people and the use of terms like 'cope and seeth' and 'cry about it'. I think that's unprofessional behaviour and we should aim to educate and bring people into our way of thinking instead of mocking them for not immediately seeing eye to eye with us.

Also:

Minskiev wrote:What is "informed consent"? Informed how? I assume verifiable is modifying consent.


Informed consent, in the medical field, is a known term. According to this article from healthline,

Informed consent is when a healthcare provider — like a doctor, nurse, or other healthcare professional — explains a medical treatment to a patient before the patient agrees to it. This type of communication lets the patient ask questions and accept or deny treatment.


There's more information in there as well. I'm glad you asked the question, because while I knew it was a term I'd heard before, I didn't know the full extent of it in various fields of medicine, and I think it's a perfect term to use in this proposal.
Last edited by Sylh Alanor on Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Artemis Mahariel, Speaker for the Alanori.
Delegate and Councillor of World Assembly Affairs,
Refugia

she/her

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:04 pm

Sylh Alanor wrote:I continue to find the trend of including clauses about doctors with 'bona fide moral objections' very strange. I found it strange when it was included with the abortion bill due to the fact that not just any doctor is going to be faced with providing abortion services to a patient, and I find it odd here for different reasons.

I personally lean for including that (co-author also holds that opinion) but would be happy to remove that if there is sufficient opposition.

Sylh Alanor wrote:I think it would be more understandable in this proposal, if not for the inclusion of clause 3. Clause 3, if I'm interpreting it correctly, states that if euthanasia services are not accessible nearby (implying there is a department or a speciality where a medical professional would be tasked to deal with this), that the patient be transported to a clinic that does have an available euthanasia service. If that is correctly interpreted, then there should be no situation where a doctor who would be tasked with providing a euthanasia service would suddenly have a bona fide moral objection. It should be a specialised service, much like an ob-gyn or family planning doctor would provide an abortion so that the patient would be in educated hands.

Uh, yes. What if euthanasia is provided in, say, a hospital, but the doctor tasked with it has a conscencious objection? In that case, the obvious solution would be to send a different doctor without an objection to do the euthanasia.

Sylh Alanor wrote:I also wonder what you think about people with extreme depression who have tried all the normal treatments and cannot find anything that works. Or someone who is elderly and is in chronic pain, but is not suffering from an incurable terminal illness other than time. I don't know that they need to be included, but I'm interested in why the limit of this proposal is an incurable terminal illness.

The main reasons I'd oppose including that would be is that it would be way too controversial to be something that needs to be legislated in international law; in my opinion, both opinions on that are perfectly valid, and that it would require a whole lot of other regulations, for example if euthanising because of chronic depression, it would need to be certain that they have undergone treatment that was not effective etc.

Sylh Alanor wrote:Those bits aside, I think this is a great start for a proposal and I can see myself supporting it in the event that the linked repeal goes through. My biggest issue is the purposeful baiting of conservative people and the use of terms like 'cope and seeth' and 'cry about it'. I think that's unprofessional behaviour and we should aim to educate and bring people into our way of thinking instead of mocking them for not immediately seeing eye to eye with us.

Ok ig

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3191
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:23 am

... that are free for the patient and paid for by the government of said member nations ...


"Not an issue so much in Bananaistan considering our universal healthcare system in which people pay in through the tax system according to their means. But ultimately there is no such thing as a free lunch and this would ultimately take money from parts of health services dedicated to making people live longer and direct it into "health" services that literal kill people. This is bad. Opposed. Those who can afford to pay should be obliged to pay if that's how a country sets out their health services in other respects."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9202
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:54 am

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I cannot in principle support this or a repeal of the Assisted Suicide Act. I am in particular concerned that, if this body's predecessor rightly stated that ""humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods," then why is "completely painless" by itself any better a criterion?

OOC: Preamble - "There must be a resolution to legalise X because there exists a right to X!" And why does there exist a right to X?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Sylh Alanor
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 182
Founded: May 10, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sylh Alanor » Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:26 am

The Python wrote:Uh, yes. What if euthanasia is provided in, say, a hospital, but the doctor tasked with it has a conscencious objection? In that case, the obvious solution would be to send a different doctor without an objection to do the euthanasia.

I take this to mean you don't intend the proposal in the way I interpreted (a medical speciality for euthanasia and life-ending services).
Artemis Mahariel, Speaker for the Alanori.
Delegate and Councillor of World Assembly Affairs,
Refugia

she/her

User avatar
Kurogasa
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Oct 15, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kurogasa » Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:31 am

I'm all for letting people decide when to go, I will not have the government paying for it.

You can be a communist in your own nation.

User avatar
The Nippon Teikoku
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Feb 08, 2021
Capitalizt

Postby The Nippon Teikoku » Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:35 am

The Python wrote:Consider this a warning that right-wingers will oppose this. Replacement for when this inevitably gets submitted and (hopefully) passes (note: IA has given permission for me to submit that if he is unable to).

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,

Hereby:
  1. Defines “euthanasia” as the killing of a patient, where:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
    2. the operation is completely painless,
    3. the patient has an incurable terminal illness, and
    4. the operation is assisted by a medical professional,
  2. Requires that member states provide euthanasia services that are free for the patient and paid for by the government of said member nations;
  3. Mandates that member states provide free and government-paid travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services if euthanasia services are not accessible nearby;
  4. Bans any government discrimination or penalties against recipients or the heirs thereof, the families of recipients of or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, inculding but not limited to discrimination in tax,
  5. Enforces that member states ban any form of coercion, whether by other persons or the government, for a patient to seek euthanasia, and
  6. Clarifies that any medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia as long as they direct the patient to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

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

As a well known NS right winger myself i would actually be for this. I think it expands personal freedoms which is something that any reasonable right wing individual would be for.

Now that said i ask for clarification. Is this some socialist crap where the taxpayer/government has to pay for it or is this someone who is paying for it themselves? If its the former than no wonder why right wingers are against it. If its the latter than there really isnt a problem.

Though i get the feeling some communist is going to lecture me on how suicide is a human right

Not all right wingers are bible thumpers and religious fanatics, just like i assume youre not a communist (despite that ns is majority communist)

Edit: After giving it another read i see that it is indeed the former. And i am definitely against that because i may be pro freedom but i am rabidly anti-communist
Last edited by The Nippon Teikoku on Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Centrist Monarchist, rabid anti communist. Happy to clarify any and all views to any who may be curious

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 193
Founded: May 08, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Heavens Reach » Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:29 pm

The Nippon Teikoku wrote:
The Python wrote:Consider this a warning that right-wingers will oppose this. Replacement for when this inevitably gets submitted and (hopefully) passes (note: IA has given permission for me to submit that if he is unable to).

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,

Hereby:
  1. Defines “euthanasia” as the killing of a patient, where:
    1. the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
    2. the operation is completely painless,
    3. the patient has an incurable terminal illness, and
    4. the operation is assisted by a medical professional,
  2. Requires that member states provide euthanasia services that are free for the patient and paid for by the government of said member nations;
  3. Mandates that member states provide free and government-paid travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services if euthanasia services are not accessible nearby;
  4. Bans any government discrimination or penalties against recipients or the heirs thereof, the families of recipients of or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, inculding but not limited to discrimination in tax,
  5. Enforces that member states ban any form of coercion, whether by other persons or the government, for a patient to seek euthanasia, and
  6. Clarifies that any medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia as long as they direct the patient to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.

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

As a well known NS right winger myself i would actually be for this. I think it expands personal freedoms which is something that any reasonable right wing individual would be for.

Now that said i ask for clarification. Is this some socialist crap where the taxpayer/government has to pay for it or is this someone who is paying for it themselves? If its the former than no wonder why right wingers are against it. If its the latter than there really isnt a problem.

Though i get the feeling some communist is going to lecture me on how suicide is a human right

Not all right wingers are bible thumpers and religious fanatics, just like i assume youre not a communist (despite that ns is majority communist)

Edit: After giving it another read i see that it is indeed the former. And i am definitely against that because i may be pro freedom but i am rabidly anti-communist


When we use words, ambassador, we try to remember that they have definitions. For example, "communist" does not mean "everyone too far left for me" even though that's how you're using it.

User avatar
Kurogasa
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Oct 15, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kurogasa » Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:42 pm

Heavens Reach wrote:
The Nippon Teikoku wrote:As a well known NS right winger myself i would actually be for this. I think it expands personal freedoms which is something that any reasonable right wing individual would be for.

Now that said i ask for clarification. Is this some socialist crap where the taxpayer/government has to pay for it or is this someone who is paying for it themselves? If its the former than no wonder why right wingers are against it. If its the latter than there really isnt a problem.

Though i get the feeling some communist is going to lecture me on how suicide is a human right

Not all right wingers are bible thumpers and religious fanatics, just like i assume youre not a communist (despite that ns is majority communist)

Edit: After giving it another read i see that it is indeed the former. And i am definitely against that because i may be pro freedom but i am rabidly anti-communist


When we use words, ambassador, we try to remember that they have definitions. For example, "communist" does not mean "everyone too far left for me" even though that's how you're using it.


Much like you don't have to be a "right-winger" to oppose something.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Desmosthenes and Burke

Advertisement

Remove ads