[PASSED] Repeal: “Access to Life-Ending Services”

[Frisbeeteria]

Hello. At-vote proposal bad. Not good. Me repeal.

The World Assembly,

Believing that access to euthanasia is an important right for those who deem it necessary and that if there were to be a resolution on it with gaping flaws, that resolution disservices the people internationally,

Disappointed that GA#593 Access to Life-Ending Services, in subclause 1.a(iv), allows member states to opt-out entirely as it excludes euthanasia to only patients with an incurable “serious” illness that is fatal or causes “unbearable” agony, which may be abused by nations unwilling to provide euthanasia with the simple argument that the patient’s illness is not serious enough or the agony is bearable (as the individual is physically "bearing" it by being alive); thus, any effort to provide euthanasia to people in member states that do not provide it has been crushed and any member state can declare that any individual does not follow 1.a(iv) and is therefore ineligible for assisted suicide. This entire resolution is at a base-level unreasonable with this exclusion, so malleable it is embarrassing, and is

Embarrassed at subclause 1.c, stating that a “locally accessible” assisted suicide clinic is one with travel that places no “substantial” burden on quality of life, time, or finances. As there is no arbiter of what is substantial, this poses a threat for those seeking euthanasia, as it could lead to euthanasia being impossibly expensive to reach. It is also quite hilarious that quality of life must be considered for death,

Outraged further by Clause 2 which, instead of offering to pay for assisted suicide clinics that medical professionals without moral objections would run (and thus removing the need for Clause 6 and a lot of controversy in the topic), has member states arrange for eligible patients in areas without “locally accessible” (which is widely meaningless) assisted suicide services to “travel to the nearest clinic within WA jurisdiction that provides safe assisted suicide services.” This means two things, both unacceptable:

• The first interpretation of “within WA jurisdiction” is within territory under direct control by the WA, ie the WA headquarters. While ambassadors may want to seek assisted suicide after debates about the death penalty, employees vs. independent contractors, or paid leave, an assisted suicide clinic has no place in the headquarters of a legislative body, and thus there is no such nearest clinic to travel to, defeating the entire purpose of the resolution.
• The second interpretation of “within WA jurisdiction” is within every WA member state. This would oftentimes mean sending eligible patients to warzones, staunch enemies or otherwise hostile nations, quarantined nations, and potentially even nations unreachable by the arranging member state’s technology, as “nearest” does not factor in diplomatic relations, military activity, health, general safety, or practicality. “Safe assisted suicide services” does not save this loophole, as it merely requires the euthanasia service to be safe, not access to it.

Ashamed that Clause 5 is yet another opt-out of the entire resolution as compelling is entirely subjective; member states would comply with the resolution by claiming that “euthanasia opposes our state interest of not killing our people” is compelling enough,

Puzzled at Clause 6, which says that consent to euthanasia before "the procedure is performed by a medical professional trained in assisted suicide" still counts, instead of the far more sensible provision stating that consent to euthanasia before 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" still counts,

Shocked that Clause 8 lets member states jack up the prices of assisted suicide, as again there is no arbiter of what a “substantial” burden to the patient’s finances is, thus essentially robbing patients in unbearable agony already,

Finding GA#593 to be unmistakably flawed, to the point where repeal is necessary,

Hereby repeals GA#593.

[Apatosaurus]

Disappointed that GA#593 Access to Life-Ending Services excludes euthanasia to only patients with an incurable “serious” illness that is fatal or causes “unbearable” agony, which may be abused by nations unwilling to provide euthanasia with the simple argument that the patient’s illness is not serious enough or the agony is bearable; this entire resolution is at a base-level unreasonable with this exclusion, and furthermore so malleable it is embarrassing,

"An illness is "serious" enough if it causes "premanent unbearable agony" or "will directly result in their death in the foreseeable future". Relying on Cambridge's definition of unbearable, "unbearable" means "too painful or unpleasant for you to continue to experience", and as such, only the patient can really determine accurately whether something is "too painful ... for [them] to continue to experience". If a member state leaves their government to be the arbiter of truth as to what is "unbearable", they will be denying youth in Asia to individuals who are enduring unbearable agony. This interpretation would violate both the very clause that you are complaining about interpretations of, and Clause 4's prohibition on requiring individuals not to receive assisted suicide."

Disappointed that... "serious"... Embarassed at ... "substantial" ... Shocked that ... "substantial", Dispirited that ... "serious"

OOC: Are half of your clauses also really complaining about me using words like "serious" or "substantial"?

Disheartened that the entire resolution is basically meaningless as the definition of “eligible patient” in 1.b never actually determines what “eligible” is or ties it to 1.a(iv) in “an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide”; thus, as most of the resolution is tailored to these eligible patients, member states may declare anyone ineligible for assisted suicide services and bypass the mandates to provide assisted suicide entirely,

"This is false. The eligible wording is written with 1a.iv requirements in mind, as obviously individuals cannot be eligible to receive assisted suicide if their conditions mean that it's not considered "assisted suicide". As such, this interpretation would violate Section 4, which among other things, prohibits requiring individuals to not receive assisted suicide. Note that this is very much a black-and-white situation. You cannot receive assisted suicide if you are not eligible to do so. If you are not eligible to receive assisted suicide, then that means that you cannot be allowed to receive assisted suicide be required to pay for your own assisted suicide or similar, as you simply cannot receive assisted suicide if not "eligible"."

It is also quite hilarious that quality of life must be considered for death,

"Why?"

While ambassadors may want to seek assisted suicide after debates about the death penalty, employees vs. independent contractors, or paid leave

OOC: xD

an assisted suicide clinic has no place in the headquarters of a legislative body, and thus there is no such nearest clinic to travel to, defeating the entire purpose of the resolution.

"As there is no "nearest clinic" in the headquarters of a legislative body, as you put it, a member state would be physically unable to follow the terms of that interpretation, and unless they want fines from the Compliance Commission (which is not a good argument for a repeal as member-states can refuse to comply with any resolution) they would have to follow the second interpretation."

[*]The second interpretation of “within WA jurisdiction” is within every WA member state. This would oftentimes mean deporting eligible patients to warzones, staunch enemies or otherwise hostile nations, quarantined nations, and potentially even nations unreachable by the arranging member state’s technology, as “nearest” does not factor in diplomatic relations, military activity, health, general safety, or practicality.

OOC: I briefly thought about this after reading A2A, and decided to use "nearest clinic within World Assembly jurisdiction that provides safe assisted suicide services". Getting assisted suicide in a warzone does not seem like a safe assisted suicide service.

Ashamed that Clause 5 is yet another opt-out of the entire resolution as compelling is entirely subjective; member states would comply with the resolution by claiming that “euthanasia opposes our state interest of not killing our people” is compelling enough,

"The clause not only states that member-states must have such an interest in mind when making the restriction, but they must show that the restriction furthers such an interest. If they cannot demonstrate to the Compliance Commission that "euthanasia opposes the state interest of not killing our people" is a "compelling, and practical state interest", then it's not valid for the purposes of that clause. I highly doubt that the Compliance Commission would think that an interest which goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution would be "compelling"."

[Morover]

"My delegation supports all repeal of the at-vote proposal, given that it undergoes the proper drafting processes."

[Minskiev]

Ambassador Russell snorts. He claps his flippers twice, and soon after a poor, degraded intern hurries over and presents to Wallace the AngloMatic™. Finally, he can begin to berate the dinosaur in front of him in a more universal language. They really ought to teach Walrussian in schools. Damn education system is backwards.

"An illness is "serious" enough if it causes "premanent unbearable agony" or "will directly result in their death in the foreseeable future". Relying on Cambridge's definition of unbearable, "unbearable" means "too painful or unpleasant for you to continue to experience", and as such, only the patient can really determine accurately whether something is "too painful ... for [them] to continue to experience". If a member state leaves their government to be the arbiter of truth as to what is "unbearable", they will be denying youth in Asia to individuals who are enduring unbearable agony. This interpretation would violate both the very clause that you are complaining about interpretations of, and Clause 4's prohibition on requiring individuals not to receive assisted suicide."

"The point is, Ambassador, 'too painful or unpleasant' is subjective. It's not about how accurate it is. The patient's pain may very well be to you and me unbearable but to member states who do not want euthanasia, they will say that since the pain is bearable (again, not necessarily accurate, which it does not need to be), the patient is ineligible. Moreover, it is not 'requiring them against' receiving assisted suicide, it is not providing assisted suicide due to them being ineligible. Your intent with the resolution was that ineligible patients don't receive assisted suicide, right? Well, here you have ineligible patients."

"Are half of your clauses also really complaining about me using words like "serious" or "substantial"? "

"Not complaining, merely pointing out the a) lazy writing and b) gaping loopholes because these words are subjective and therefore abusable."

OOC: You do realize your own co-author wrote a blog on this, yes?

"This is false. The eligible wording is written with 1a.iv requirements in mind, as obviously individuals cannot be eligible to receive assisted suicide if their conditions mean that it's not considered "assisted suicide". As such, this interpretation would violate Section 4, which among other things, prohibits requiring individuals to not receive assisted suicide. Note that this is very much a black-and-white situation. You cannot receive assisted suicide if you are not eligible to do so. If you are not eligible to receive assisted suicide, then that means that you cannot be allowed to receive assisted suicide be required to pay for your own assisted suicide or similar, as you simply cannot receive assisted suicide if not "eligible"."

"In mind, perhaps. On paper, not so. And that's what counts, Ambassador. Eligible is not tied to 1a.iv requirements, and thus member states may deny eligibility for assisted suicide and comply perfectly well with your resolution. The problem here is that your entire proposal is about eligible patients. If your definition for eligible patient is 'an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide', then eligible means nothing and is subject to the interpretations of member states. If eligible is interpreted to be decided by member states (as it is surely not by 1.a(iv), since there are no explicit connection between the two), then that member state is complying."

"Why?"

"Seriously? Quality of life for assisted suicide? The whole point is that they have a poor quality of life, damn it! That's why they want to end their life! They don't care about their quality of life, it already sucks!"

"As there is no "nearest clinic" in the headquarters of a legislative body, as you put it, a member state would be physically unable to follow the terms of that interpretation, and unless they want fines from the Compliance Commission (which is not a good argument for a repeal as member-states can refuse to comply with any resolution) they would have to follow the second interpretation."

"I don't think so, Ambassador. If a resolution assigns an impossible task, does the Compliance Commission fine every member state? Of course not! This is no different."

"I briefly thought about this after reading A2A, and decided to use "nearest clinic within World Assembly jurisdiction that provides safe assisted suicide services". Getting assisted suicide in a warzone does not seem like a safe assisted suicide service."

"Safe is again subjective, Ambassador. And the assisted suicide service may be perfectly safe! But outside of the building could be chaos."

"The clause not only states that member-states must have such an interest in mind when making the restriction, but they must show that the restriction furthers such an interest. If they cannot demonstrate to the Compliance Commission that "euthanasia opposes the state interest of not killing our people" is a "compelling, and practical state interest", then it's not valid for the purposes of that clause. I highly doubt that the Compliance Commission would think that an interest which goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution would be "compelling"."

"What poor resolution writing. Leaving an opt-out of the entire resolution in, determined by an entirely subjective term, and then trusting that the Compliance Commission will follow your interpretation! Nonsense, Ambassador. Many arguments against euthanasia go against every part of the "spirit of the resolution", and yet they can be valid. Your entire counterargument rests on the fact that they may not "demonstrate" that their interest is compelling enough, but holds no water. You have no idea what the CC will say. Having the CC's opinion (which you only assume to be yours) carry the entire resolution is terrible, Ambassador. They might not follow your intent in the slightest! Then what? You're in a rut with this one, Ambassador. Your precious CC cannot save you always. Say go-"
The intern takes away the AngloMatic™. Low batteries. Damn, right when it was getting to the good part. Oh well.

[Blind Squirrel]

OOC: You do realize your own co-author wrote a blog on this, yes?

The larger question this raises is why IA would allow his name to be put on this poorly conceived proposal? Why would IA support something filled with such ambiguous language that he argued against in his own blog post?

Rules for thee and not for me.

[Apatosaurus]

"An illness is "serious" enough if it causes "premanent unbearable agony" or "will directly result in their death in the foreseeable future". Relying on Cambridge's definition of unbearable, "unbearable" means "too painful or unpleasant for you to continue to experience", and as such, only the patient can really determine accurately whether something is "too painful ... for [them] to continue to experience". If a member state leaves their government to be the arbiter of truth as to what is "unbearable", they will be denying youth in Asia to individuals who are enduring unbearable agony. This interpretation would violate both the very clause that you are complaining about interpretations of, and Clause 4's prohibition on requiring individuals not to receive assisted suicide."

"The point is, Ambassador, 'too painful or unpleasant' is subjective. It's not about how accurate it is. The patient's pain may very well be to you and me unbearable but to member states who do not want euthanasia, they will say that since the pain is bearable (again, not necessarily accurate, which it does not need to be), the patient is ineligible. Moreover, it is not 'requiring them against' receiving assisted suicide, it is not providing assisted suicide due to them being ineligible. Your intent with the resolution was that ineligible patients don't receive assisted suicide, right? Well, here you have ineligible patients."

"That is also not the point. The point is that only the patient can know whether it is "too painful ... for [them] to continue to experience". A member state can say all they want that they don't think that it's unbearable, but that doesn't change whether it actually is unbearable. If it's actually unbearable, regardless of what a member-state says, it fits under 1b."

"Are half of your clauses also really complaining about me using words like "serious" or "substantial"? "

"Not complaining, merely pointing out the a) lazy writing and b) gaping loopholes because these words are subjective and therefore abusable."

OOC: You do realize your own co-author wrote a blog on this, yes?

OOC: On the word "reasonable", not "serious" or "substantial".

"This is false. The eligible wording is written with 1a.iv requirements in mind, as obviously individuals cannot be eligible to receive assisted suicide if their conditions mean that it's not considered "assisted suicide". As such, this interpretation would violate Section 4, which among other things, prohibits requiring individuals to not receive assisted suicide. Note that this is very much a black-and-white situation. You cannot receive assisted suicide if you are not eligible to do so. If you are not eligible to receive assisted suicide, then that means that you cannot be allowed to receive assisted suicide be required to pay for your own assisted suicide or similar, as you simply cannot receive assisted suicide if not "eligible"."

"In mind, perhaps. On paper, not so. And that's what counts, Ambassador. Eligible is not tied to 1a.iv requirements, and thus member states may deny eligibility for assisted suicide and comply perfectly well with your resolution. The problem here is that your entire proposal is about eligible patients. If your definition for eligible patient is 'an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide', then eligible means nothing and is subject to the interpretations of member states. If eligible is interpreted to be decided by member states (as it is surely not by 1.a(iv), since there are no explicit connection between the two), then that member state is complying."

"That is also not the point, Ambassador. The point is that you cannot be eligible to receive assisted suicide if your situations means that you do not fit into the definition. If I define X as doing Y to people that are Z, you are not eligible for X if you are not Z. Therefore, that eliminates the concern of individuals being considered "eligible" for "assisted suicide" as defined in 1a if they do not fit into 1b.

As to individuals not being considered eligible despite fitting into 1b, that is prevented by Clause 4, as no member state may "deliberately ... require an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide"." Emphasis on "an individual"; not "an eligible patient", any individual.

"Why?"

"Seriously? Quality of life for assisted suicide? The whole point is that they have a poor quality of life, damn it! That's why they want to end their life! They don't care about their quality of life, it already sucks!"

"And how does that contract with the statement that they should not be forced to have a worse quality of life or their suffering to be extended?"

"As there is no "nearest clinic" in the headquarters of a legislative body, as you put it, a member state would be physically unable to follow the terms of that interpretation, and unless they want fines from the Compliance Commission (which is not a good argument for a repeal as member-states can refuse to comply with any resolution) they would have to follow the second interpretation."

"I don't think so, Ambassador. If a resolution assigns an impossible task, does the Compliance Commission fine every member state? Of course not! This is no different."

"Source? GAR#440 states that the IAO's assessments of non-compliance and the amount of fines imposed "must be based on ... the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation, the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation, the state’s history of noncompliance [and other factors]". If the member-state specifically follows the alternative interpretation that results in non-compliance, I think that they are not acting in good faith."

"I briefly thought about this after reading A2A, and decided to use "nearest clinic within World Assembly jurisdiction that provides safe assisted suicide services". Getting assisted suicide in a warzone does not seem like a safe assisted suicide service."

"Safe is again subjective, Ambassador. And the assisted suicide service may be perfectly safe! But outside of the building could be chaos."

"If they can receive assisted suicide services safely, I fail to see the problem. Being taken to a warzone to receive assisted suicide does not seem like safe assisted suicide services as it may be difficult to receive it safely."

"The clause not only states that member-states must have such an interest in mind when making the restriction, but they must show that the restriction furthers such an interest. If they cannot demonstrate to the Compliance Commission that "euthanasia opposes the state interest of not killing our people" is a "compelling, and practical state interest", then it's not valid for the purposes of that clause. I highly doubt that the Compliance Commission would think that an interest which goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution would be "compelling"."

"What poor resolution writing. Leaving an opt-out of the entire resolution in, determined by an entirely subjective term, and then trusting that the Compliance Commission will follow your interpretation! Nonsense, Ambassador. Many arguments against euthanasia go against every part of the "spirit of the resolution", and yet they can be valid. Your entire counterargument rests on the fact that they may not "demonstrate" that their interest is compelling enough, but holds no water. You have no idea what the CC will say. Having the CC's opinion (which you only assume to be yours) carry the entire resolution is terrible, Ambassador. They might not follow your intent in the slightest! Then what? You're in a rut with this one, Ambassador. Your precious CC cannot save you always. Say go-"

"So, is your argument that the Compliance Commission might exempt a member-state from the resolution if they say "Well assisted suicide is murder and we have a compelling interest in banning it"? The compelling interest "not dying is an important state interest" is simply bad faith non-compliance that goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution, and is simply unreasonable."

[Minskiev]

"Arf arf arf? ARF ARF? Arf arf arf arf, arf arf arf!" He claps his flippers again. AngloMatic™ time!

"That is also not the point. The point is that only the patient can know whether it is "too painful ... for [them] to continue to experience". A member state can say all they want that they don't think that it's unbearable, but that doesn't change whether it actually is unbearable. If it's actually unbearable, regardless of what a member-state says, it fits under 1b."

"Ambassador, that patient may claim it is unbearable all they wish but if a member state says it is bearable regardless and marks them ineligible, they are complying with the resolution. Particularly because of how one can define unbearable. Unbearable is unable to be borne. Physically unable. A member state may see that would-be eligible patient, remark that they are clearly somewhat bearing their pain, and decide their pain must logically then not be unbearable, and thus that patient never receives the assisted suicide they need. What's more is your specific wording (using that instead of which) says it must be a serious illness, and that serious illness will directly result in their death etc etc., notably not that it is an illness so serious that it will directly result etc. etc. That is a requirement of it, which is an attribute. If I say I grab my bike that is red, I grab the red bike, as opposed to the yellow or blue (or any other) bike. If I say I grab my bike, which is red, then I grab my red bike. There is no other bike that can be inferred from this sentence.

TLDR unbearable has different definitions that validate assessments from non-patients. Moreover, the definition still has the 'serious' problem."

"On the word "reasonable", not "serious" or "substantial"."

"Exactly the same in application, Ambassador. IA asks two questions in that blog: 'Reasonable to whom?' and 'What is reasonable?'. We can ask those same questions. 'Substantial to whom? Serious to whom? What is substantial? What is serious?' Your logic is categorically faulty."

"That is also not the point, Ambassador. The point is that you cannot be eligible to receive assisted suicide if your situations means that you do not fit into the definition. If I define X as doing Y to people that are Z, you are not eligible for X if you are not Z. Therefore, that eliminates the concern of individuals being considered "eligible" for "assisted suicide" as defined in 1a if they do not fit into 1b.

As to individuals not being considered eligible despite fitting into 1b, that is prevented by Clause 4, as no member state may "deliberately ... require an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide"." Emphasis on "an individual"; not "an eligible patient", any individual.

"Ah, I might be beginning to see your point. Yes, 'eligible to receive assisted suicide' uses your definition of assisted suicide, and so eligible to receive 1a euthanasia would also mean eligible under 1.a(iv). Okay, I will drop that clause."

"And how does that contract with the statement that they should not be forced to have a worse quality of life or their suffering to be extended?"

"It's that the measurement is widely meaningless. Quality of life has nothing to do with essentially a doctor's appointment, it's about access to necessities."

"Source? GAR#440 states that the IAO's assessments of non-compliance and the amount of fines imposed "must be based on ... the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation, the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation, the state’s history of noncompliance [and other factors]". If the member-state specifically follows the alternative interpretation that results in non-compliance, I think that they are not acting in good faith."

"I don't buy it, the WA HQ is a valid interpretation of your vague wording. There is nothing implicitly wrong with interpreting it that way, since hell, it's not even clear which interpretation you intended. Hardly bad-faith, and again, placing your problems on the back of offices/commissions. You have no idea how they will rule, don't pretend like it will work in your favor."

"If they can receive assisted suicide services safely, I fail to see the problem. Being taken to a warzone to receive assisted suicide does not seem like safe assisted suicide services as it may be difficult to receive it safely."

"Ambassador, it is the assisted suicide services themselves that must be "safe". Not the transportation! And...what? Being taken to a warzone to receive otherwise safe assisted suicide services is completely plausible. It's not about how difficult it is to receive it according to your resolution, it's about how safe the operation is. The operation may be very safe, the way of getting there isn't necessarily."

"So, is your argument that the Compliance Commission might exempt a member-state from the resolution if they say "Well assisted suicide is murder and we have a compelling interest in banning it"? The compelling interest "not dying is an important state interest" is simply bad faith non-compliance that goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution, and is simply unreasonable."

"'Simply unreasonable bad faith non-compliance that goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution' is subjective, Ambassador. A pity indeed, but the truth. It means nothing that you think that."

[Apatosaurus]

"Arf arf arf? ARF ARF? Arf arf arf arf, arf arf arf!" He claps his flippers again. AngloMatic™ time!

Arf arf! Arf arf arf, arf arf, arf, arf. Arf.

"That is also not the point. The point is that only the patient can know whether it is "too painful ... for [them] to continue to experience". A member state can say all they want that they don't think that it's unbearable, but that doesn't change whether it actually is unbearable. If it's actually unbearable, regardless of what a member-state says, it fits under 1b."

"Ambassador, that patient may claim it is unbearable all they wish but if a member state says it is bearable regardless and marks them ineligible, they are complying with the resolution. Particularly because of how one can define unbearable. Unbearable is unable to be borne. Physically unable.

"Yeah, at that point you're getting into the territory of defining "war crime" as "vanilla custard". Sure, some member state might decide that "unbearable" means "you will die purely because of the pain/agony". Not that such an interpretation is reasonable in context, and as per GAR#2 member states are expected to follow good faith interpretation."

A member state may see that would-be eligible patient, remark that they are clearly somewhat bearing their pain, and decide their pain must logically then not be unbearable, and thus that patient never receives the assisted suicide they need. What's more is your specific wording (using that instead of which) says it must be a serious illness, and that serious illness will directly result in their death etc etc., notably not that it is an illness so serious that it will directly result etc. etc. That is a requirement of it, which is an attribute. If I say I grab my bike that is red, I grab the red bike, as opposed to the yellow or blue (or any other) bike. If I say I grab my bike, which is red, then I grab my red bike. There is no other bike that can be inferred from this sentence.

OOC: Fair enough, I guess.

"On the word "reasonable", not "serious" or "substantial"."

"Exactly the same in application, Ambassador. IA asks two questions in that blog: 'Reasonable to whom?' and 'What is reasonable?'. We can ask those same questions. 'Substantial to whom? Serious to whom? What is substantial? What is serious?' Your logic is categorically faulty."

OOC: Agree to disagree?

"That is also not the point, Ambassador. The point is that you cannot be eligible to receive assisted suicide if your situations means that you do not fit into the definition. If I define X as doing Y to people that are Z, you are not eligible for X if you are not Z. Therefore, that eliminates the concern of individuals being considered "eligible" for "assisted suicide" as defined in 1a if they do not fit into 1b.

As to individuals not being considered eligible despite fitting into 1b, that is prevented by Clause 4, as no member state may "deliberately ... require an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide"." Emphasis on "an individual"; not "an eligible patient", any individual.

"Ah, I might be beginning to see your point. Yes, 'eligible to receive assisted suicide' uses your definition of assisted suicide, and so eligible to receive 1a euthanasia would also mean eligible under 1.a(iv). Okay, I will drop that clause."

OOC: :thumbsup:

"And how does that contract with the statement that they should not be forced to have a worse quality of life or their suffering to be extended?"

"It's that the measurement is widely meaningless. Quality of life has nothing to do with essentially a doctor's appointment, it's about access to necessities."

"Okay, let's break this down. Assisted suicide needs to be accessible because individuals who believe that they would prefer a quick death than a poor quality of life with no prospect of improvement, due to permanent agony or a slow and prolonged death, should be able to receive such. However, if the point is to avoid a lowered quality of life for individuals that would rather die than have such a low quality of life, them still being in such a lowered quality of life is obviously problematic. It's not just "a doctor's appointment". Quality of life is the reason for assisted suicide, and it should absolutely be relevant in receiving such."

"Source? GAR#440 states that the IAO's assessments of non-compliance and the amount of fines imposed "must be based on ... the state’s objective intent to commit noncompliance or the actions proximate to a violation, the good faith nature of the state’s actions proximate to a violation, the state’s history of noncompliance [and other factors]". If the member-state specifically follows the alternative interpretation that results in non-compliance, I think that they are not acting in good faith."

"I don't buy it, the WA HQ is a valid interpretation of your vague wording. There is nothing implicitly wrong with interpreting it that way, since hell, it's not even clear which interpretation you intended. Hardly bad-faith, and again, placing your problems on the back of offices/commissions. You have no idea how they will rule, don't pretend like it will work in your favor."

"Okay, I will phrase it differently. There are two possible interpretations. One is to transport people to a non-existent clinic in the WA Headquarters, which is fundamentally impossible to do. The other is to transport people to an existent clinic in a member-state, which is possible to do. Why would a rational member-state choose to do the former over the latter?"

"If they can receive assisted suicide services safely, I fail to see the problem. Being taken to a warzone to receive assisted suicide does not seem like safe assisted suicide services as it may be difficult to receive it safely."

"Ambassador, it is the assisted suicide services themselves that must be "safe". Not the transportation! And...what? Being taken to a warzone to receive otherwise safe assisted suicide services is completely plausible. It's not about how difficult it is to receive it according to your resolution, it's about how safe the operation is. The operation may be very safe, the way of getting there isn't necessarily

"The exact wording is "safe assisted suicide services". The services are not completely safe if individuals cannot access and recieve them safely. Furthermore, as per Reasonable Nation Theory, what would a nation gain in following your interpretation when alternative interpretations (such as mine) exist? Why would a rational member state deliberately ship people off to warzones?"

"'Simply unreasonable bad faith non-compliance that goes against every part of the spirit of the resolution' is subjective, Ambassador. A pity indeed, but the truth. It means nothing that you think that."

"You have not answered by question. Is your argument that the Compliance Commission might exempt a member-state from the resolution if they say "not dying through assisted suicide is an important state interest"?

As to that being subjective, no, it is not subjective. The resolution is called "Access to Life-Ending Services". The preamble directly states that "individuals should possess the right to end their life on their own terms if they are in unbearable agony from an incurable illness". The active clauses are excruciatingly clear that the intent is to ensure access to assisted suicide. "Not dying is an important state interest" is just orc behaviour, and not behaviour that the Compliance Commission would uphold. Furthermore, that section is designed to use strict scrutiny, which as a requirement has that "narrowly tailored means that are the least restrictive necessary to achieve the stated interest" are used. How is banning assisted suicide the least restrictive means to do so?"

[Minskiev]

OOC: Bump

"Yeah, at that point you're getting into the territory of defining "war crime" as "vanilla custard". Sure, some member state might decide that "unbearable" means "you will die purely because of the pain/agony". Not that such an interpretation is reasonable in context, and as per GAR#2 member states are expected to follow good faith interpretation."

"Ah, the good-faith bad-faith argument. No interpretation that isn't intended by the author is really faithful to the intent, is it? I also, frankly, don't know what's with you and war crimes, vanilla custard, and tabby cats. Moreover, GA#2 says to in good faith carry out its obligations from these treaties. I can assure you that many member states will interpret the text alternatively and in good faith carry out those interpreted obligations. The literal definition of unbearable pain, 'pain unable to be borne', is most definitely reasonable in context. As the kids may say these days, my good fellow, you appear to be, oh what is it...coping? Ah yes, coping. Cope."

Agree to disagree?

"Ambassador, you are decidedly wrong. Reasonable, substantial, and serious are all vague nothing terms. Ask IA, you shall receive the same answer."

"Okay, let's break this down. Assisted suicide needs to be accessible because individuals who believe that they would prefer a quick death than a poor quality of life with no prospect of improvement, due to permanent agony or a slow and prolonged death, should be able to receive such. However, if the point is to avoid a lowered quality of life for individuals that would rather die than have such a low quality of life, them still being in such a lowered quality of life is obviously problematic. It's not just "a doctor's appointment". Quality of life is the reason for assisted suicide, and it should absolutely be relevant in receiving such."

"You say them still being in such a lowered quality of life is obviously problematic. But your proposal says nothing on improving the quality of life while receiving euthanasia. Rather, it says no 'substantial' (meaningless) burden must be placed on it. Which in actuality does nothing, but following your (meaningless) intent, holds the quality of life in place, if not lowering it (albeit less than substantially, whatever that means). So this does not help. And the quality of life is hardly relevant in the first place. Yes, low quality of life is the reason for euthanasia. No, quality of life is not relevant for a clinic to be locally accessible, especially when you don't even raise it but rather attach meaningless terms to it and hope good-faith bad-faith and the CC will salvage your trainwreck dumpster fire of a resolution. It is silly to hope that member states don't 'burden' (frankly I don't know why you used the word burden here, it makes no sense contextually) the quality of life of people whose quality of life is so low that they want to kill themselves. If they want to kill themselves anyway, does it matter? No."

"Okay, I will phrase it differently. There are two possible interpretations. One is to transport people to a non-existent clinic in the WA Headquarters, which is fundamentally impossible to do. The other is to transport people to an existent clinic in a member-state, which is possible to do. Why would a rational member-state choose to do the former over the latter?"

"Because they're against euthanasia or want to cut costs, why else?"

"The exact wording is "safe assisted suicide services". The services are not completely safe if individuals cannot access and recieve them safely. Furthermore, as per Reasonable Nation Theory, what would a nation gain in following your interpretation when alternative interpretations (such as mine) exist? Why would a rational member state deliberately ship people off to warzones?"

"First, the services are safe if the operation (which is the service) is safe. Reaching the service is not the service. If I provide safe dental services, I will not be granting you access to an armored vehicle. Second, it's not that they gain anything. It's that your proposal mandates it! By requiring them to travel to the nearest clinic, they have no choice, Ambassador."

"You have not answered by question. Is your argument that the Compliance Commission might exempt a member-state from the resolution if they say "not dying through assisted suicide is an important state interest"?

"Yes, and the argument that they will has equally as much validity as the argument that they won't. Because we have no say in the matter. You don't, I don't. This argument is pointless, but the only conclusion is that my argument is valid."

As to that being subjective, no, it is not subjective. The title is called "Access to Life-Ending Services". The preamble directly states that "individuals should possess the right to end their life on their own terms if they are in unbearable agony from an incurable illness". The active clauses are excruciatingly clear that the intent is to ensure access to assisted suicide. "Not dying is an important state interest" is just orc behaviour, and not behaviour that the Compliance Commission would uphold. Furthermore, that section is designed to use strict scrutiny, which as a requirement has that "narrowly tailored means that are the least restrictive necessary to achieve the stated interest" are used. How is banning assisted suicide the least restrictive means to do so?"

Goodness. The title is meaningless, the preamble is meaningless, your intent is meaningless, it's all meaningless! If you didn't want opt-outs, why provide opt-outs!?!?"

Wallace's AngloMatic™ falters and begins to make a static-y noise. Damn thing can't work right.

"Ahem, sorry, back. Now as I was saying. Your intent is meaningless. By providing an opt-out system in the first place, you acknowledge that the intent of the proposal is not absolute, and some state interests are compelling enough to skip this resolution. I myself have no clue what these might be. But since you thought so, you included it, and so clearly ensuring access to assisted suicide is not for all member states. And Ambassador, how dare you speak on the behalf of the Compliance Commission! You are a sauropod! You are no gnome! Your kind has peanut brains and dull teeth, gnomes have cool hats and worker magic! Magic, damn it! You cannot at all make a valid argument based on the opinion you think the CC might have, not what the CC determines.

Moreover, 'narrowly tailored' is meaningless. Nobody determines what narrow is. And furthermore, if the interest is "we are opposed to euthanasia because it is murdering our own people", then yes, the least restrictive way to not murder your nation's people or otherwise have them murdered is to disallow euthanasia. Period. Full stop, as you might say."

[Apatosaurus]

"Yeah, at that point you're getting into the territory of defining "war crime" as "vanilla custard". Sure, some member state might decide that "unbearable" means "you will die purely because of the pain/agony". Not that such an interpretation is reasonable in context, and as per GAR#2 member states are expected to follow good faith interpretation."

"Ah, the good-faith bad-faith argument. No interpretation that isn't intended by the author is really faithful to the intent, is it?

"That is not the point, Ambassador. In context, the interpretation that "unbearable pain" means "you can live despite said pain" is silly. A member-state would only abide by that interpretation in bad faith.

I also, frankly, don't know what's with you and war crimes, vanilla custard, and tabby cats.

"War crimes are vanilla custards, ambassador."

Moreover, GA#2 says to in good faith carry out its obligations from these treaties. I can assure you that many member states will interpret the text alternatively and in good faith carry out those interpreted obligations. The literal definition of unbearable pain, 'pain unable to be borne', is most definitely reasonable in context.

"Indeed, ambassador. I am not debating that unbearable pain can reasonably mean pain unable to be borne. Our difference is what "borne" means in this context. One dictionary defines to "bear" something as "to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way". Sure, one could use the definition that "bear"/"borne" in this context means "has"/"to have". Not that such an interpretation is reasonable or possible in good faith in this particular context of the word."

As the kids may say these days, my good fellow, you appear to be, oh what is it...coping? Ah yes, coping. Cope."

OOC: Let's not.

"Okay, let's break this down. Assisted suicide needs to be accessible because individuals who believe that they would prefer a quick death than a poor quality of life with no prospect of improvement, due to permanent agony or a slow and prolonged death, should be able to receive such. However, if the point is to avoid a lowered quality of life for individuals that would rather die than have such a low quality of life, them still being in such a lowered quality of life is obviously problematic. It's not just "a doctor's appointment". Quality of life is the reason for assisted suicide, and it should absolutely be relevant in receiving such."

"You say them still being in such a lowered quality of life is obviously problematic. But your proposal says nothing on improving the quality of life while receiving euthanasia.

"... What?"

"Rather, it says no 'substantial' (meaningless) burden must be placed on it. Which in actuality does nothing, but following your (meaningless) intent, holds the quality of life in place, if not lowering it (albeit less than substantially, whatever that means). So this does not help. And the quality of life is hardly relevant in the first place. Yes, low quality of life is the reason for euthanasia. No, quality of life is not relevant for a clinic to be locally accessible, especially when you don't even raise it but rather attach meaningless terms to it and hope good-faith bad-faith and the CC will salvage your trainwreck dumpster fire of a resolution. It is silly to hope that member states don't 'burden' (frankly I don't know why you used the word burden here, it makes no sense contextually) the quality of life of people whose quality of life is so low that they want to kill themselves. If they want to kill themselves anyway, does it matter? No."

"I am so confused. Is your issue with stating that the burden of quality of life should be relevant in considering how accessible assisted suicide services are, that the word "substantial" is used?"

"Because they're against euthanasia or want to cut costs, why else?"

"If it is to attempt to reduce access to youth in Asia, that is Section 4 coercion and also violates Section 5. As that interpretation is also impossible to follow, it would be non-compliance."

"First, the services are safe if the operation (which is the service) is safe. Reaching the service is not the service. If I provide safe dental services, I will not be granting you access to an armored vehicle.

"If they are not safe to access, they are not safe."

Second, it's not that they gain anything. It's that your proposal mandates it! By requiring them to travel to the nearest clinic, they have no choice, Ambassador."

"Not just the nearest clinic, ambassador. The nearest clinic that provides safe assisted suicide services. While your interpretation may indeed be colourable, no rational member state would voluntarily choose to follow your interpretation when others exist."

"Yes, and the argument that they will has equally as much validity as the argument that they won't. Because we have no say in the matter. You don't, I don't. This argument is pointless, but the only conclusion is that my argument is valid."

"What? "assisted suicide is bad and we have a compelling interest in banning it" is orc behaviour, and gnomes are too wise to fall for that."

Goodness. The title is meaningless, the preamble is meaningless, your intent is meaningless, it's all meaningless! If you didn't want opt-outs, why provide opt-outs!?!?"

"Because otherwise that clause, which otherwise bans anything which "has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide", will prohibit some reasonable restrictions, for example, requiring a psychological test to ensure that consent provided for assisted suicide are fully informed, or safeguards to be double sure that they were not coerced into providing the consent."

Wallace's AngloMatic™ falters and begins to make a static-y noise. Damn thing can't work right.

"You walrus!"

"Ahem, sorry, back. Now as I was saying. Your intent is meaningless. By providing an opt-out system in the first place, you acknowledge that the intent of the proposal is not absolute, and some state interests are compelling enough to skip this resolution. I myself have no clue what these might be. But since you thought so, you included it, and so clearly ensuring access to assisted suicide is not for all member states.

"Not the entire resolution, Ambassador. Merely "any policy that has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide". As I previously stated, some reasonable restrictions might have such an impact, but should not be prohibited by that clause. This is a blatant straw-uh ... dinosaur... yes, strawdinosaur, of my argument and that section."

And Ambassador, how dare you speak on the behalf of the Compliance Commission! You are a sauropod! You are no gnome! Your kind has peanut brains and dull teeth, gnomes have cool hats and worker magic! Magic, damn it! You cannot at all make a valid argument based on the opinion you think the CC might have, not what the CC determines.

OOC: Why would the Compliance Commission determine that "Assisted suicide is murder and we have a compelling interest in banning it" is "compelling"?

Janet Spinos, Prime Minister of Apatosaurus, enters the room, and speaks assertively: "I have received a call from Ambassador Scott about your remark which is blatantly speciesist against sauropods. Please apologise immediately, or we will have to enact trade sanctions on Minskiev and you may also get defenestrated."

Moreover, 'narrowly tailored' is meaningless. Nobody determines what narrow is.

Ambassador Scott: "The Compliance Commission does."

And furthermore, if the interest is "we are opposed to euthanasia because it is murdering our own people", then yes, the least restrictive way to not murder your nation's people or otherwise have them murdered is to disallow euthanasia. Period. Full stop, as you might say."

[/quote]
"Is it? I can think of many more less restrictive means of not murdering your people (and we are making the assumption that assisted suicide is the only way that they are murdering their own people, mind you). For example, having stronger healthcare that is based on quality of life for patients that are terminally ill or have an illness that causes them unbearable agony, in order to reduce the need for euthanasia. Or, strengthening religion in order to discourage individuals from (not require them against) receiving euthanasia. Or, encouraging the use of passive euthanasia, rather than active euthanasia (this resolution only deals with active euthanasia)."

[Minskiev]

OOC: Don't bother responding, I'm not budging.

"That is not the point, Ambassador. In context, the interpretation that "unbearable pain" means "you can live despite said pain" is silly. A member-state would only abide by that interpretation in bad faith.

"That is not the interpretation, the interpretation is that unbearable pain means you cannot live with such pain. That is not silly, that is very literal and so very faithful to the definition. Good-faith indeed. Don't even bother responding by saying it's bad-faith, because that's subjective. This argument is pointless because I've already won, Ambassador."

"War crimes are vanilla custards, ambassador."

"Easy on the drinks. Despite being an apatosaur, carrying some of the greatest amounts of blood in the animal kingdom, you clearly have it very diluted."

"Indeed, ambassador. I am not debating that unbearable pain can reasonably mean pain unable to be borne. Our difference is what "borne" means in this context. One dictionary defines to "bear" something as "to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way". Sure, one could use the definition that "bear"/"borne" in this context means "has"/"to have". Not that such an interpretation is reasonable or possible in good faith in this particular context of the word."

"It is most reasonable and most possible in good faith. And to prove it, I shall submit this repeal in, let's see, 1 day and 21 hours. We shall see if my proposal is illegal under GA#2 if it's really bad faith."

Let's not.

"Let's."

"... What?"

"Read your own proposal."

"I am so confused. Is your issue with stating that the burden of quality of life should be relevant in considering how accessible assisted suicide services are, that the word "substantial" is used?"

"Quality of life is irrelevant to making assisted suicide clinics accessible, especially when you don't actually raise the quality of life of people travelling to receive assisted suicide, whose quality of life is so low that they want to kill themselves, and thus quality of life doesn't actually matter because otherwise they wouldn't be receiving assisted suicide. Do you follow?"

"If it is to attempt to reduce access to youth in Asia, that is Section 4 coercion and also violates Section 5. As that interpretation is also impossible to follow, it would be non-compliance."

"Not in the slightest. There is zero coercion by sending patients to places without assisted suicide clinics. That is not coercing (threatening) anybody to not receive it. Moreover, that is not a policy if member states sent simply one person to a clinic instead of the WA HQ. Then it becomes a tendency. Furthermore, Clause 5 is already moot because of the compelling interest opt-out."

"If they are not safe to access, they are not safe."

"What you are saying is not what the proposal says. Safe applies exclusively to the services, not to the access."

"Not just the nearest clinic, ambassador. The nearest clinic that provides safe assisted suicide services. While your interpretation may indeed be colourable, no rational member state would voluntarily choose to follow your interpretation when others exist."

"Again, services not access. My interpretation is not only colorable, it has more validity than yours."

"What? "assisted suicide is bad and we have a compelling interest in banning it" is orc behaviour, and gnomes are too wise to fall for that."

"...what?"

"Because otherwise that clause, which otherwise bans anything which "has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide", will prohibit some reasonable restrictions, for example, requiring a psychological test to ensure that consent provided for assisted suicide are fully informed, or safeguards to be double sure that they were not coerced into providing the consent."

"But eligible patient means they fulfill all conditions of Clause 1, including 1.a(v). Not fulfilling 1.a(v) is non-compliance, so these safeguards are already instated and backed by the resolution. Moreover, why not place these safeguards in the resolution?"

"Not the entire resolution, Ambassador. Merely "any policy that has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide". As I previously stated, some reasonable restrictions might have such an impact, but should not be prohibited by that clause. This is a blatant straw-uh ... dinosaur... yes, strawdinosaur, of my argument and that section."

"But if that restriction skips the entire proposal and is backed by a compelling state interest, then it does skip the entire proposal. And you allow for that because compelling is meaningless, narrowly tailored is meaningless, and least restrictive necessary is meaningless when it comes to broad bans on euthanasia."

"Why would the Compliance Commission determine that "Assisted suicide is murder and we have a compelling interest in banning it" is "compelling"?"

"Because why would member states want to kill their own people? What about religion? What about ethics? There are a multitude of reasons."

Janet Spinos, Prime Minister of Apatosaurus, enters the room, and speaks assertively: "I have received a call from Ambassador Scott about your remark which is blatantly speciesist against sauropods. Please apologise immediately, or we will have to enact trade sanctions on Minskiev and you may also get defenestrated."

"Who even are you? Our economy is more than strong enough to withstand sanctions from you. It would probably hurt you more."

"The Compliance Commission does."

"And we have no clue what they will rule. The Compliance Commission is an independent body. You need to wrap your head around something: vague words are not a way to shortcut law. When you use vague words, any colorable interpretation is complying. Always."

"Is it? I can think of many more less restrictive means of not murdering your people (and we are making the assumption that assisted suicide is the only way that they are murdering their own people, mind you). For example, having stronger healthcare that is based on quality of life for patients that are terminally ill or have an illness that causes them unbearable agony, in order to reduce the need for euthanasia. Or, strengthening religion in order to discourage individuals from (not require them against) receiving euthanasia. Or, encouraging the use of passive euthanasia, rather than active euthanasia (this resolution only deals with active euthanasia)."

"Who determines which of those is the least restrictive? Exactly, the Compliance Commission. Any colorable interpretation flies, and banning euthanasia is colorable. Moreover, all of those would reasonably be in conjunction with a euthanasia ban, because a rational member state would wish to reduce suffering."

[Apatosaurus]

"That is not the point, Ambassador. In context, the interpretation that "unbearable pain" means "you can live despite said pain" is silly. A member-state would only abide by that interpretation in bad faith.

"That is not the interpretation, the interpretation is that unbearable pain means you cannot live with such pain. That is not silly, that is very literal and so very faithful to the definition. Good-faith indeed. Don't even bother responding by saying it's bad-faith, because that's subjective. This argument is pointless because I've already won, Ambassador."

"It is bad faith, however. "Unbearable pain" is understood to mean, in nearly all contexts, and definitely in this one, pain which is too strong for you to be able to stand."

"Indeed, ambassador. I am not debating that unbearable pain can reasonably mean pain unable to be borne. Our difference is what "borne" means in this context. One dictionary defines to "bear" something as "to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way". Sure, one could use the definition that "bear"/"borne" in this context means "has"/"to have". Not that such an interpretation is reasonable or possible in good faith in this particular context of the word."

"It is most reasonable and most possible in good faith. And to prove it, I shall submit this repeal in, let's see, 1 day and 21 hours. We shall see if my proposal is illegal under GA#2 if it's really bad faith."

"Good luck."

Let's not.

"Let's."

OOC: No really, let's not.

"... What?"

"Read your own proposal."

"... What?"

"I am so confused. Is your issue with stating that the burden of quality of life should be relevant in considering how accessible assisted suicide services are, that the word "substantial" is used?"

"Quality of life is irrelevant to making assisted suicide clinics accessible, especially when you don't actually raise the quality of life of people travelling to receive assisted suicide, whose quality of life is so low that they want to kill themselves, and thus quality of life doesn't actually matter because otherwise they wouldn't be receiving assisted suicide. Do you follow?"

"No, I do not. Assisted suicide is done because people would rather kill themselves than have such a low quality of life with no prospect of improvement. Assisted suicide services need to be more easily accessible if accessing them poses a substantial burden on their quality of life."

"If it is to attempt to reduce access to youth in Asia, that is Section 4 coercion and also violates Section 5. As that interpretation is also impossible to follow, it would be non-compliance."

"Not in the slightest. There is zero coercion by sending patients to places without assisted suicide clinics. That is not coercing (threatening) anybody to not receive it. Moreover, that is not a policy if member states sent simply one person to a clinic instead of the WA HQ. Then it becomes a tendency.

"Sure, I guess."

Furthermore, Clause 5 is already moot because of the compelling interest opt-out."

"No, it's not. You also have not addressed my point about it being impossible to comply with when there are obvious alternative options and it thus being fairly deliberate non-compliance."

"If they are not safe to access, they are not safe."

"What you are saying is not what the proposal says. Safe applies exclusively to the services, not to the access."

"Services are not safe if they cannot be accessed and received safely."

"Not just the nearest clinic, ambassador. The nearest clinic that provides safe assisted suicide services. While your interpretation may indeed be colourable, no rational member state would voluntarily choose to follow your interpretation when others exist."

"Again, services not access. My interpretation is not only colorable, it has more validity than yours."

"Rather than arguing which of our interpretations has more validity, how about this: both of our interpretations are valid, but a rational member-state has no reason to follow yours."

"What? "assisted suicide is bad and we have a compelling interest in banning it" is orc behaviour, and gnomes are too wise to fall for that."

"...what?"

"Exactly. What?"

"Because otherwise that clause, which otherwise bans anything which "has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide", will prohibit some reasonable restrictions, for example, requiring a psychological test to ensure that consent provided for assisted suicide are fully informed, or safeguards to be double sure that they were not coerced into providing the consent."

"But eligible patient means they fulfill all conditions of Clause 1, including 1.a(v). Not fulfilling 1.a(v) is non-compliance, so these safeguards are already instated and backed by the resolution. Moreover, why not place these safeguards in the resolution?"

"You or I do not know what works best for all member states in terms of such safeguards, so instead a strict scrutiny test assessed by the Compliance Commission works best. Furthermore, these "safeguards" are only examples of such reasonable restrictions."

"Not the entire resolution, Ambassador. Merely "any policy that has a cognisable impact of burdening the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide". As I previously stated, some reasonable restrictions might have such an impact, but should not be prohibited by that clause. This is a blatant straw-uh ... dinosaur... yes, strawdinosaur, of my argument and that section."

"But if that restriction skips the entire proposal and is backed by a compelling state interest, then it does skip the entire proposal.

"Does it?"

And you allow for that because compelling is meaningless, narrowly tailored is meaningless, and least restrictive necessary is meaningless when it comes to broad bans on euthanasia."

"How in the universe is banning assisted suicide the least restrictive means of not killing your own people?"

"Why would the Compliance Commission determine that "Assisted suicide is murder and we have a compelling interest in banning it" is "compelling"?"

"Because why would member states want to kill their own people? What about religion? What about ethics? There are a multitude of reasons."

"Because they should as per this resolution and basic ethics?"

"The Compliance Commission does."

"And we have no clue what they will rule. The Compliance Commission is an independent body. You need to wrap your head around something: vague words are not a way to shortcut law. When you use vague words, any colorable interpretation is complying. Always."

*confused noises*

"Is it? I can think of many more less restrictive means of not murdering your people (and we are making the assumption that assisted suicide is the only way that they are murdering their own people, mind you). For example, having stronger healthcare that is based on quality of life for patients that are terminally ill or have an illness that causes them unbearable agony, in order to reduce the need for euthanasia. Or, strengthening religion in order to discourage individuals from (not require them against) receiving euthanasia. Or, encouraging the use of passive euthanasia, rather than active euthanasia (this resolution only deals with active euthanasia)."

"Who determines which of those is the least restrictive? Exactly, the Compliance Commission.[/quote]
"You answered your own question."

Any colorable interpretation flies, and banning euthanasia is colorable.

"No, it is not."

Moreover, all of those would reasonably be in conjunction with a euthanasia ban, because a rational member state would wish to reduce suffering."

"Not necessarily."

Janet Spinos, Prime Minister of Apatosaurus, enters the room, and speaks assertively: "I have received a call from Ambassador Scott about your remark which is blatantly speciesist against sauropods. Please apologise immediately, or we will have to enact trade sanctions on Minskiev and you may also get defenestrated."

"Who even are you? Our economy is more than strong enough to withstand sanctions from you. It would probably hurt you more."

"We ask the same question to you. Our economy is also strong enough to withstand not trading with you. These sanctions will only be lifted if Wallace Russell gets recalled from the World Assembly Ambassador position in Minskiev, or if Russell apologises for his speciesist remark."

Scott opens the defenestration window, and then picks up Russell using his two front feet. He holds the walrus about to be defenestrated in front of the window and then gently pushes Russell out of the window using his head. Scott watches the walrus fall before hearing the satisfying noise of the walrus' splash in the Vastivan Memorial Reflecting Pool.

[New Ulsan]

The proposal hasn't even been passed yet and we already want to repeal it? Damn,

some people are faster than R34 artists

[Astrobolt]

Ambassador Tappe: “Our delegation was a bit surprised at how quickly this proposal was submitted. Regardless, unless there is a suitable replacement ready to go, we will vote against this proposal if it reaches the voting floor.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

The proposal hasn't even been passed yet and we already want to repeal it? Damn,

some people are faster than R34 artists

C Marcius Blythe. Welcome to the World Assembly, ambassador.

[Attempted Socialism]

"We do not find the arguments for repealing to be particularly convincing, and without a draft replacement in a mature stage we cannot see the need to vote on any repeal, the one before us or a hypothetically convincing version, now."

[Minskiev]

Replacement will be out in hours, certainly before this comes to vote.

[New Ulsan]

The proposal hasn't even been passed yet and we already want to repeal it? Damn,

some people are faster than R34 artists

C Marcius Blythe. Welcome to the World Assembly, ambassador.

Good evening, and thanks for the welcoming message, Mr. C Marcius Blythe.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I've marked this illegal, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I don't see how "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" permits member states to unilaterally decide that they will have WA funding for euthanasia, without any input whatsoever from the actual General Fund. There are a couple other statements that really skirt the line, but that and the bit about "deportation" are the most egregious IMO.

[Minskiev]

OOC: I've marked this illegal, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I don't see how "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" permits member states to unilaterally decide that they will have WA funding for euthanasia, without any input whatsoever from the actual General Fund. There are a couple other statements that really skirt the line, but that and the bit about "deportation" are the most egregious IMO.

I offhandedly used deportation, not as much a repeal point but a verb for "having them leave the nation", so I'm not sure about that so much. The WAGF thing is fair though, I think originally it was framed as a decision by the member state and more recently framed to be up to the WA to decide which I didn't catch.

[Maanaim]

Greetings, Your Excellencies, Heads of State and Ambassadors.

I don't speak English and I'm using google translator, if something is difficult to understand, I'd like to clarify.

The Mahanaim Community reinforces its opposition to the Resolution passed at the World Assembly on Access to End-of-Life Services.
I welcome the reasons listed by the noble Minskiev and I want to present our point of view on the matter as listed below:

1- Difficulty in clearly and objectively establishing a patient's eligibility for assisted suicide. According to the Resolution, the patient needs:

a) have an incurable disease that will lead to death in the foreseeable future.

However, according to the medical literature, it is extremely difficult to establish concrete predictions for the life expectancy of each patient.

Another problem with the Resolution is that this criterion opens the possibility for a patient with any disease to request assisted suicide even if their disease is controllable. For example Hypertension and Diabetes are incurable diseases that can greatly reduce a citizen's life expectancy.

b) Illness that will directly result in unbearable and permanent agony.

This criterion is very subjective. Permanent conditions can be established by science, but the ability to withstand an adverse condition cannot. The question is: is the state of agony reversible?

c) The patient must provide consent.

I believe this is a crucial point. This eligibility criterion only allows assisted suicide for patients who are aware of their attitude.
The problem is that people in a vegetative state will not be able to access the service. These patients are the most vulnerable and eligible for the service.
By excluding these patients, the Resolution makes it clear that the right to die is not a fundamental right of all human beings.

2- The Resolution fails to establish a body to monitor compliance with the rules and also to be an instance for patients who have their rights violated to appeal.

3- We believe that the theme: end-of-life services should be treated as something domestic, subject to the internal regulation of each country.

This topic is delicate for nations that have a great religiosity. As it is not a fundamental right, there is no need for such an invasive resolution.

well folks, these are my arguments. It's 11 pm in my country, I'm going to sleep and tomorrow I present a proposal to amend the approved Resolution.

Respectfully,
Carlos C. Ayres
Mahanaim community.

[Apatosaurus II]

OOC: Tinhampton just pointed out that Section 6 says "1a.iii" when it should say "1a.iv". Combined with that some of this raises some good points after thinking about it (the issue point outed in "Outraged".2 could be clearer, for example), I am now fully behind this being repealed. I say this as the author. I don't agree with half of the arguments here, but I don't care how it goes as long as it goes.

[FNR WA Office]

The Free Nations Region has voted FOR Repeal "Access to Life-Ending Services".

Many of the points raised in the proposal we believe are flawed; for example, no rational member state would voluntarily choose to follow an interpretation which is impossible to actually comply with, the word "substantial" is not vague, and the possibility of the misinterpretation of the term "unbearable" relies on a relatively bad faith interpretation. However, the proposal also raises good points against the proposal; for example, the "nearest clinic" standard is poor as the nearest clinic might be more difficult to access (we would prefer a standard such as "most speedily accessible clinic" or similar), the "safe assisted suicide services" standard is also poor as "safe" applies only to the service, rather than access thereto. Lastly, the author of the target Apatosaurus II (also Delegate of FNR) supports a repeal of this resolution. By repealing GAR#593, a higher-quality replacement which is currently in the works can replace the current flawed resolution.

[Milorum]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "Access To Life-Ending Services".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Astrobolt]

OOC: Is there a replacement associated with this Minsk, or do you support Apato’s replacement?