NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Access to Life-Ending Services

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Apatosaurus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 854
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Access to Life-Ending Services

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

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) update: the repeal of GAR#285 was submitted by Imperium Anglorum, and as such this will get submitted on the 28'th of January The repeal has passed and this is now at vote. Please vote for! This has now become GAR#593! :D

This was co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

The General Assembly,

Believing that individuals should possess the right to end their life on their own terms if they are in unbearable agony from an incurable illness, and

Convinced that the supposed dangers of permitting access to assisted suicide do not outweigh the right to have a dignified and humane death,

Hereby enacts the following:
  1. Let these terms be defined as follows within this resolution:
    1. “Assisted suicide” is defined as the ending of the life of an individual where:
      1. the procedure is quick and painless,
      2. the procedure is in the privacy of the patient, such that the only individuals present are the medical professional performing the operation, any of their medical assistants, the patient, and any individuals that the patient has granted explicit permission to be present,
      3. the procedure is performed by a medical professional trained in assisted suicide,
      4. the recipient has an incurable serious physical illness that will directly result in their death in the foreseeable future or directly results in permanent unbearable agony, and
      5. the recipient has provided verifiable, informed consent on their own free will to the procedure and method thereof (where they are fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives); the individual in question must be permitted to withdraw this consent at any time.
    2. An "eligible patient" is defined as an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide who has provided the necessary consent and is in a species that biologically can die.
    3. Assisted suicide services shall be considered "locally accessible" if no substantial burden to quality of life, time, or finances to eligible patients in those areas is posed by the necessary travel to receive said assisted suicide services.
  2. Member states must provide assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member states must arrange for eligible patients in those areas to travel to the nearest clinic within World Assembly jurisdiction that provides safe assisted suicide services.

  3. No member state may discriminate against any persons (or persons related thereof) for receiving, seeking, administering, or otherwise facilitating, assisted suicide, including but not limited to:
    1. discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them,
    2. prosecuting individuals, or individuals related thereof, for receiving, seeking, administrating, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide,
    3. withholding any inheritance from the heirs of individuals, due to said individuals having died due to receiving assisted suicide, or
    4. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.
  4. No person, group of persons, or member state may deliberately coerce or require an individual to seek or receive assisted suicide. Similarly, it is prohibited for any person, group of persons or member state to deliberately coerce or require an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide.

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

  6. Consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for receiving assisted suicide shall count as consent for the purposes of 1av and 1b. However, assisted suicide may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1a are met and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to receive assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.

  7. A medical professional that has publicly communicated a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be required to perform assisted suicide, as long as that professional directs patients seeking assisted suicide to easily, readily, and locally accessible assisted suicide services. No member state, person, or group of persons may deliberately coerce or require a medical professional to either provide or not provide such an objection.

  8. Member states must fund all Section 2 services and travel such that they are free for the recipient, unless the individual receiving such travel or services can already otherwise afford such without posing a substantial burden to their finances. The World Assembly General Fund may also fund assisted suicide services if a member state is unable to do so without causing serious damage to their economy or finances.

The General Assembly,

Convinced that individuals should possess the legal right to end their lives if they are in unbearable agony from an incurable terminal illness,

Confident that denying this right to individuals will only cause individuals needless suffering and agony, and

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

Hereby enacts the following.

  1. For the purposes of this resolution:
    1. “assisted suicide” means ending of the life of an individual, where:
      1. the procedure is quick and painless,
      2. the procedure is done in the privacy of the patient, such that the only individuals present are the medical professional performing the operation, any of their medical assistants, the patient and any individuals that the patient has granted express permission to be present,
      3. the procedure is performed by a medical professional trained in assisted suicide,
      4. the recipient has an incurable serious illnes that directly causes permanent suffering that is unlikely to end in the patient's remaining lifespan, or will result in their death in the foreseeable future,
      5. the recipient has provided verifiable and informed consent on their own free will to the procedure and method thereof (where they are fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any possible alternatives); this consent may be withdrawn by the individual in question at any time,
    2. "eligible patient" is an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide who has provided the necessary consent and is in a species that biologically can die, and
    3. assisted suicide services shall be considered "locally accessible" if no substantial burden to quality of life, time or finances to eligible patients in those areas is posed by the necessary travel to receive said services.
  2. Member nations must provide free assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction seeking assisted suicide. In areas where assisted suicide services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for eligible patients in those areas to travel to the nearest clinic within WA jurisdiction that provides assisted suicide services.

  3. No member nation may discriminate against any persons (or persons related thereof) for receiving, seeking, administering, or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide, including but not limited to:
    1. discriminating against said persons in tax by placing a higher burden of tax on them,
    2. prosecuting individuals, or individuals related thereof, for receiving, seeking, administrating or otherwise facilitating assisted suicide,
    3. withholding any inheritance from the heirs of individuals due to said individuals having died due to recieving assisted suicide, or
    4. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.
  4. No person, group of persons, or member nation may deliberately pressure, coerce or require an individual to seek or receive assisted suicide. Similarly, it is prohibited for any person, group of persons or member nation to deliberately coerce an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide.

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

  6. A medical professional that has publicly communicated a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide, without external coercion or incentives, may not be required to perform assisted suicide if, and only if, that professional refers patients seeking assisted suicide to easily, readily, and locally accessible assisted suicide services.

  7. Consent provided by an individual for assisted suicide in advance of meeting section 1.a.iii requirements or their preferred timeframe for receiving assisted suicide shall still count as consent for the purposes of 1.a.v and 1.b. However, assisted suicide may not be performed on that individual until all the other requirements in 1.a are met and if applicable, the preferred timeframe to receive assisted suicide as provided by the consenting individual is met.

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 supposed 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 Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:07 am, edited 156 times in total.
Hey there! :D Have a great day!~
6x WA Author | I've done stuff | WA Delegation | Factbook | He/Him
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
I'm happy to accept an ideological ban rule where Max lists every single ideology and tells us whether every single policy does or does not ban every possible ideology - Imperium Anglorum
That's like saying that gasoline tastes better than diesel when cheesecake is on the menu - Separatist Peoples

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

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.
See more information here.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13816
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Liberal 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.
I don't stand with Ukraine. I don't stand with Russia. I don't stand with the US, NATO, or EU. I stand with the innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire while the politicians, the media, and weapons manufacturers continue to stoke division and conflict in their geopolitical chess games and treat the people of Ukraine as mere pawns. Zelensky is a corrupt, opportunist oligarchic politician who is not fit to lead Ukraine through anything and wants to inflate his own ego and offshore accounts.

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

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.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Forward. Forever.
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

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.
See more information here.

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

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.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Forward. Forever.
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

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
See more information here.

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
Minister
 
Posts: 2179
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

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.
Hulldom: At some point, authors without real end goals for what they want to do turn their resolutions into shitposting.
I have a goal of promoting democracy, equitable competition, and readiness. Sep focuses on conduct during war. IA on liberalization of the economy and society.
I have no freaking clue with Minsk.
Salem: i hope Walrus gets DOS in a year and the black walruses gets raided
Andusre: cause like, cringe, we stan walrus
Moon: who gave a walrus RO powers
Spode: Does a walrus really have anything to say about other animals being weird? Like half of history is people trying to convert them into pool balls.
Pathoal: Walrus is the only one here with the courage to expose liberal yahoos
Minskiev \o/ Walrus
Official Blubber Bitch Baby
3x Officer of the Rejected Realms
8x WA Author, Amb. Wallace Russell
Current Delegate of the Rejected Realms

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

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.
See more information here.

User avatar
Deacarsia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1325
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.
Sic enim Deus dílexit mundum, ut Fílium suum unigénitum daret: ut omnis qui credit in eum, non péreat, sed hábeat vitam ætérnam.

User avatar
Minskiev
Minister
 
Posts: 2179
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

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.
Hulldom: At some point, authors without real end goals for what they want to do turn their resolutions into shitposting.
I have a goal of promoting democracy, equitable competition, and readiness. Sep focuses on conduct during war. IA on liberalization of the economy and society.
I have no freaking clue with Minsk.
Salem: i hope Walrus gets DOS in a year and the black walruses gets raided
Andusre: cause like, cringe, we stan walrus
Moon: who gave a walrus RO powers
Spode: Does a walrus really have anything to say about other animals being weird? Like half of history is people trying to convert them into pool balls.
Pathoal: Walrus is the only one here with the courage to expose liberal yahoos
Minskiev \o/ Walrus
Official Blubber Bitch Baby
3x Officer of the Rejected Realms
8x WA Author, Amb. Wallace Russell
Current Delegate of the Rejected Realms

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

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
See more information here.

User avatar
Minskiev
Minister
 
Posts: 2179
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

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?
Hulldom: At some point, authors without real end goals for what they want to do turn their resolutions into shitposting.
I have a goal of promoting democracy, equitable competition, and readiness. Sep focuses on conduct during war. IA on liberalization of the economy and society.
I have no freaking clue with Minsk.
Salem: i hope Walrus gets DOS in a year and the black walruses gets raided
Andusre: cause like, cringe, we stan walrus
Moon: who gave a walrus RO powers
Spode: Does a walrus really have anything to say about other animals being weird? Like half of history is people trying to convert them into pool balls.
Pathoal: Walrus is the only one here with the courage to expose liberal yahoos
Minskiev \o/ Walrus
Official Blubber Bitch Baby
3x Officer of the Rejected Realms
8x WA Author, Amb. Wallace Russell
Current Delegate of the Rejected Realms

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
Ex-Nation

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.
See more information here.

User avatar
Sylh Alanor
Envoy
 
Posts: 220
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 of Refugia

she/her

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

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
See more information here.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3263
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
New York Times Democracy

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
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10157
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, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Sylh Alanor
Envoy
 
Posts: 220
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 of Refugia

she/her

User avatar
Kurogasa
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Oct 15, 2005
Father Knows Best State

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
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Feb 08, 2021
Capitalist Paradise

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: 65
Founded: Oct 15, 2005
Father Knows Best State

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: 104 Partisans, Berenice Soviet, Kaprein

Advertisement

Remove ads