NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing the many problems in Grande's current euthanasia proposal, I have put together a rival proposal which I feel is far more clear, and which does not force nations to allow involuntary euthanasia - i.e. this proposal forces nations to respect sane patients' wishes, however if the patient is not considered sane or if he or she cannot express their wishes but the family requests that he/she be killed humanely, each nation can choose what to do.

I do believe that basic human rights like sovereignty over one's body are important enough for the UN to deal with, so here's the proposal, can I get any comment before I submit it:


The legalisation of suicide and voluntary euthanasia

I guess this would be human rights, strong. Should I make it significant instead? What do you think?

Postulating that:
- The individual should be sovereign over his or her own body
- Such a fundamental human right is the business of an international body such as the NSUN
- Unnecessary suffering is often prolonged against the wishes of the patient as they are forced to die naturally

Therefore:
- Every individual considered capable of making adult decisions should have the right to choose to die
- Since some people suffering from terminal illnesses cannot kill themselves (e.g. due to paralysis), for them to die with dignity will often necessitate another individual killing them

The UN hereby resolves that:
- Every individual has the right to commit suicide; those who fail in suicide attempts shall not be punished as a criminal in any member nation.
- Any individual considered an adult in his/her nation, and considered by a majority of a panel of 3 respected, qualified psychiatrists to be of a sane state of mind and capable of making such a decision, may make and sign a legal document to say that under any certain specified conditions, such as paralysis, in a situation when s/he is unable to kill him/herself, s/he is to be killed in the most humane way possible. That document may be changed at any time when the conditions above are fulfilled. The wishes expressed in the most recent copy of any such document shall be respected.
- If an adult patient with an illness like this expresses his or her wish to die, and it is decided by a majority of a panel of 5 respected, qualified psychiatrists that s/he is in a sane state of mind, able to make such a decision, that wish should be respected and the patient should be killed in the most humane way possible.
- No individual may be forced to kill a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found.
- In any other conditions, such as when the patient is not considered sane or when the patient is incapable of expressing their wishes, each nation may make their own laws, as long as they do not violate any other UN resolutions (e.g. laws against genocide). This also means that member nations may make it easier to request euthanasia (e.g. governments may do away with the requirements for approval from psychiatrists) however they may not make it any harder then specified in this proposal.

Please give me feedback quickly, I need to submit this soon so that it can compete against the other one

Personally. we'd not be voting cos we'd want to decide this on our own. But just for feedback purposes :


- Any individual considered an adult in his/her nation, and considered by a majority of a panel of 3 respected, qualified psychiatrists to be of a sane state of mind and capable of making such a decision, may make and sign a legal document to say that under any certain specified conditions, such as paralysis, in a situation when s/he is unable to kill him/herself, s/he is to be killed in the most humane way possible. That document may be changed at any time when the conditions above are fulfilled. The wishes expressed in the most recent copy of any such document shall be respected.

In the even that something happens, and the victim decides not to euthanize, but is prevented from changing his or her mind because he or she can't communicate, what happens ? the nation makes it's own laws ? then we'd have two sets of laws, which would be somewhat wasteful. Also, we'd be basically saying that international law overrules national law, which would be an unhealthy precedent.

And about this :

This also means that member nations may make it easier to request euthanasia (e.g. governments may do away with the requirements for approval from psychiatrists) however they may not make it any harder then specified in this proposal.

Doesn't that make it easy for governments to dispose of "dissidents" ?

Also, what if no doctor can be found (i.e no doctor wants to do it ?)

- Any individual considered an adult in his/her nation, and considered by a majority of a panel of 3 respected, qualified psychiatrists to be of a sane state of mind and capable of making such a decision, may make and sign a legal document to say that under any certain specified conditions, such as paralysis, in a situation when s/he is unable to kill him/herself, s/he is to be killed in the most humane way possible. That document may be changed at any time when the conditions above are fulfilled. The wishes expressed in the most recent copy of any such document shall be respected.

In the even that something happens, and the victim decides not to euthanize, but is prevented from changing his or her mind because he or she can't communicate, what happens ? the nation makes it's own laws ? then we'd have two sets of laws, which would be somewhat wasteful. Also, we'd be basically saying that international law overrules national law, which would be an unhealthy precedent.

The whole point of the document is to plan for times when the person would be unable to communicate. If they can't communicate, you have to assume that they meant what they said in the document and haven't changed their minds. But at least with this risk, it's the individual's choice. They would know when making the document that this kind of scenario would be possible, but at least the option is open not to sign the document, whereas if euthanasia is illgal altogether, they don't even have the choice to take the risk.

International law does take precedence over national law, that's the whole point of international treaties and organisations like the UN. National law is forced to conform to international law every time we pass a resolution.


This also means that member nations may make it easier to request euthanasia (e.g. governments may do away with the requirements for approval from psychiatrists) however they may not make it any harder then specified in this proposal.

Doesn't that make it easy for governments to dispose of "dissidents" ?

Also, what if no doctor can be found (i.e no doctor wants to do it ?)

It doesn't make it easier for the government to do this, it just doesn't make it harder, since there is no legislation about controlling dissidents anyway. I don't want to ban or make obligatory involuntary euthanasia, where the relatives decide. How about I change the final clause to this?


- The choice is left up to individual nations of whether to legalise involuntary euthanasia at the request of next-of-kin when patients have been in deep comas for several years
- Nations may make the conditions for requesting voluntary euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. It would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).


As to your other question, it is very unlikely that no doctor could be found, but I'll change it to this to solve the problem anyway.


- No individual may be forced to kill a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found. In the very unlikely event that no doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a doctor from another country, the patient can request at the time (or beforehand in the euthanasia document) that another individual may be the "assistant" in "assisted suicide" and not be punished as a criminal, as long as the act is performed humanely. The patient may specify, if s/he so wishes, which individuals may do this (for instance only relatives).

The whole point of the document is to plan for times when the person would be unable to communicate. If they can't communicate, you have to assume that they meant what they said in the document and haven't changed their minds. But at least with this risk, it's the individual's choice. They would know when making the document that this kind of scenario would be possible, but at least the option is open not to sign the document, whereas if euthanasia is illgal altogether, they don't even have the choice to take the risk.

International law does take precedence over national law, that's the whole point of international treaties and organisations like the UN. National law is forced to conform to international law every time we pass a resolution.

You mean it was the individual's choice. :) doesn't the UN work on a country to country basis ? I mean, does the UN have the power to force a nation to force one of it's citizens to do something ? you can force a country to do something (for instance give up a disputed island) but can you force a country to force a citizen to do something ? I don't think so. What if he doesn't comply ? there are no laws the country can use to force him to comply.

At any rate, we cannot have assumptions like this. I can imagine being awake but unable to move, listening to people plan your execution. This would be too much emotional torture.

It doesn't make it easier for the government to do this, it just doesn't make it harder, since there is no legislation about controlling dissidents anyway.

I think it makes it easier. Murder = crime. But arranged "accident" + brainwashing + euthanasia = internationally sanctioned murder ? :)


- The choice is left up to individual nations of whether to legalise involuntary euthanasia at the request of next-of-kin when patients have been in deep comas for several years

So the UN has no say in this. Which is good.


- Nations may make the conditions for requesting voluntary euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. It would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).

That would leave the door open for internationally sanctioned murder. (see above.)


- No individual may be forced to kill a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found. In the very unlikely event that no doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a doctor from another country, the patient can request at the time (or beforehand in the euthanasia document) that another individual may be the "assistant" in "assisted suicide" and not be punished as a criminal, as long as the act is performed humanely. The patient may specify, if s/he so wishes, which individuals may do this (for instance only relatives).

You want someone untrained in medicine to do a doctor's job ? I don't think that's such a good idea. How would he know what to do ? it's usually not as simple as it looks.

No. Catholic Europe, and many other nations, will not and do not accept the legalisation of Euthanasia, otherwise known as murder.

How anyone can justify the legalisation of murder, no matter what conditions that they put around it, is beyond me. It is the UN's job to protect people and their lives - not legalise the muder of themselves.

You mean it was the individual's choice. :) doesn't the UN work on a country to country basis ? I mean, does the UN have the power to force a nation to force one of it's citizens to do something ? you can force a country to do something (for instance give up a disputed island) but can you force a country to force a citizen to do something ? I don't think so. What if he doesn't comply ? there are no laws the country can use to force him to comply.

At any rate, we cannot have assumptions like this. I can imagine being awake but unable to move, listening to people plan your execution. This would be too much emotional torture.

I don't quite see what you mean about forcing anyone - this is about choice.

To your second paragraph: But at least then the situation would be the fault of the individual citizen, and since s/he has a choice, then it's his/her problem if they got it wrong. I think TGM would be able to say this far more eloquently than I, but this is all I can say: if euthanasia is illegal, there's no choice, so the citizen who wants to die has a legitimate moral case against the government denying them that right. But if we (seeing ourselves as the governments of our nations) give them the choice and respect any requests made in that document, then 1 it's more likely that their wishes will be respected (because it's more likely that they won't change their minds than that they will) and 2 if they change their minds, we aren't in the wrong because we gave them that choice, they made the wrong decision - you can't just ban every decision where 1 choice might have a negative outcome.

It doesn't make it easier for the government to do this, it just doesn't make it harder, since there is no legislation about controlling dissidents anyway.

I think it makes it easier. Murder = crime. But arranged "accident" + brainwashing + euthanasia = internationally sanctioned murder ? :)

You're thinking in terms of western liberal democracies, whose governments wouldn't do this anyway because the public could easily find out - for governments which might want to do this kind of thing in a "free" society, I'm sure there are quieter, easier ways. The only kind of country where there's a danger of this kind of thing is somewhere equivalent to say Stalin's USSR, where people were arrested and killed without explanation and with only thin cover-ups anyway (this proposal would make no difference to them, and I think we should tackle problems one at a time).


- Nations may make the conditions for requesting voluntary euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. It would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).

That would leave the door open for internationally sanctioned murder. (see above.)

No, because it specifically says voluntary euthanasia - when the patient has requested it. I'll put in a definition of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia at the beginning. And remember, when it says "This is the nation's choice" it effectively means "everything about this bit stays as it was before"


- No individual may be forced to kill a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found. In the very unlikely event that no doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a doctor from another country, the patient can request at the time (or beforehand in the euthanasia document) that another individual may be the "assistant" in "assisted suicide" and not be punished as a criminal, as long as the act is performed humanely. The patient may specify, if s/he so wishes, which individuals may do this (for instance only relatives).

You want someone untrained in medicine to do a doctor's job ? I don't think that's such a good idea. How would he know what to do ? it's usually not as simple as it looks.

Well it's the only way, if no doctor will do it - this is very unlikely anyway, so wouyld be fairly uncommon (the proposal says that this can only be done if no doctor in the country can be found). Your government could supply instructions on how to kill humanely, if you really want, but I think people could work it out for themselves. Perhaps anaesthetics could be supplied on "euthanasia prescriptions" to make sure that it is painless.

Myopia, I am strongly against Euthanasia of any kind. Therefore i would not support any legislation attempting to pass any such bill. Euthanasia is nothing more than murder, plain and simple. I also don't believe that your bill would pass if you were to call it "voluntary suicide". The main point of life is to live. hence the name :wink: ... The basic human right is not to die, in my opinion, but rather to live. Now, i cannot sit here and say that people can not be allowed to commit suicide, although i don't ever see suicide as an answer, but to allow another person to kill someone else??? That is nothing more than murder!

Once again, I do not support this attempted bill of Euthanasia, nor do I hope than any member of the South Pacific supports it either.

"The more you hold us down, the more we press on."
Signed, Zeus104

I don't quite see what you mean about forcing anyone - this is about choice.

In the (admittedly very unlikely) event that no one wants to do it at all, what happens ?

you can't just ban every decision where 1 choice might have a negative outcome.p

Not sure what you mean here, you can't ban a decision.

It doesn't make it easier for the government to do this, it just doesn't make it harder, since there is no legislation about controlling dissidents anyway.

I think it makes it easier. Murder = crime. But arranged "accident" + brainwashing + euthanasia = internationally sanctioned murder ? :)

You're thinking in terms of western liberal democracies, whose governments wouldn't do this anyway because the public could easily find out - for governments which might want to do this kind of thing in a "free" society, I'm sure there are quieter, easier ways.

None of which are internationally sanctioned :)

The only kind of country where there's a danger of this kind of thing is somewhere equivalent to say Stalin's USSR, where people were arrested and killed without explanation and with only thin cover-ups anyway (this proposal would make no difference to them, and I think we should tackle problems one at a time).

That's not the point. The point is that we do not want to support internationally sanctioned murder.


- Nations may make the conditions for requesting voluntary euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. It would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).


- No individual may be forced to kill a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found. In the very unlikely event that no doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a doctor from another country, the patient can request at the time (or beforehand in the euthanasia document) that another individual may be the "assistant" in "assisted suicide" and not be punished as a criminal, as long as the act is performed humanely. The patient may specify, if s/he so wishes, which individuals may do this (for instance only relatives).

You want someone untrained in medicine to do a doctor's job ? I don't think that's such a good idea. How would he know what to do ? it's usually not as simple as it looks.

Well it's the only way, if no doctor will do it - this is very unlikely anyway, so wouyld be fairly uncommon (the proposal says that this can only be done if no doctor in the country can be found). Your government could supply instructions on how to kill humanely, if you really want, but I think people could work it out for themselves. Perhaps anaesthetics could be supplied on "euthanasia prescriptions" to make sure that it is painless.

It can only be done if no doctor in the country wants to do it, not if no doctor can be found :) Even in the case of anaesthetics, how much do you want to administer ? too little and there's gonna be suffering. If it's done wrongly, there's going to be suffering.

(OOC: Gone. Back tomorrow or whenever.)

(OOC: Gone. Back tomorrow or whenever.)

I'll answer now anyway, as much for the benefit of anyone else who has the same ideas as you.

I don't quite see what you mean about forcing anyone - this is about choice.

In the (admittedly very unlikely) event that no one wants to do it at all, what happens ?

You look for all the people close to the patient, all doctors in the world, then all the people in the world. If nobody in the world was prepared to do it, the proposal wouldn't pass because everyone would be anti-euthanasia.

you can't just ban every decision where 1 choice might have a negative outcome.p

Not sure what you mean here, you can't ban a decision.

Ok I mean banning acting on a decision. Without legalised euthanasia, you make it illegal for anyone to act on a paralysed person's decision to be killed.

It doesn't make it easier for the government to do this, it just doesn't make it harder, since there is no legislation about controlling dissidents anyway.

I think it makes it easier. Murder = crime. But arranged "accident" + brainwashing + euthanasia = internationally sanctioned murder ? :)

You're thinking in terms of western liberal democracies, whose governments wouldn't do this anyway because the public could easily find out - for governments which might want to do this kind of thing in a "free" society, I'm sure there are quieter, easier ways.

None of which are internationally sanctioned :)

The only kind of country where there's a danger of this kind of thing is somewhere equivalent to say Stalin's USSR, where people were arrested and killed without explanation and with only thin cover-ups anyway (this proposal would make no difference to them, and I think we should tackle problems one at a time).

That's not the point. The point is that we do not want to support internationally sanctioned murder.

This isn't internationally sanctioning it, it's leaving it alone. I can't make a proposal which at once deals with the issues of euthanasia and unjustified state executions. This is a game - to make legislation acceptable in a real international body, to make the differentiations between the subtle legal differences you complain about, I'd have to write hundreds of pages, which I can't do and you wouldn't read.


- Nations may make the conditions for requesting voluntary euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. It would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).


- No individual may be forced to kill a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found. In the very unlikely event that no doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a doctor from another country, the patient can request at the time (or beforehand in the euthanasia document) that another individual may be the "assistant" in "assisted suicide" and not be punished as a criminal, as long as the act is performed humanely. The patient may specify, if s/he so wishes, which individuals may do this (for instance only relatives).

You want someone untrained in medicine to do a doctor's job ? I don't think that's such a good idea. How would he know what to do ? it's usually not as simple as it looks.

Well it's the only way, if no doctor will do it - this is very unlikely anyway, so wouyld be fairly uncommon (the proposal says that this can only be done if no doctor in the country can be found). Your government could supply instructions on how to kill humanely, if you really want, but I think people could work it out for themselves. Perhaps anaesthetics could be supplied on "euthanasia prescriptions" to make sure that it is painless.

It can only be done if no doctor in the country wants to do it, not if no doctor can be found :) Even in the case of anaesthetics, how much do you want to administer ? too little and there's gonna be suffering. If it's done wrongly, there's going to be suffering.

Ok I'll change it to "no willing doctor" happy? There will be instructions on the package, obviously, and if the person wilfully disregards such instructions, resulting in suffering, he is criminalised because he has not performed the act humanely. An examination of the body could determine how they were killed (e.g. how much of the drug is in their blood) and a qualified doctor could testify that what was done would probably cause pain. He could then be punished, because what he has done does not fall under the protective umbrella of this legislation.

We find no glaring problem with this proposal and our Senate plans to support it once it hits the floor.

We find no glaring problem with this proposal and our Senate plans to support it once it hits the floor.

You look for all the people close to the patient, all doctors in the world, then all the people in the world. If nobody in the world was prepared to do it, the proposal wouldn't pass because everyone would be anti-euthanasia.

People don't necessarily vote the way they feel. Sometimes they have to vote the other way (due to pressure or arm-twisting or whatever.) So just because everyone is anti-euthanasia doesn't necessarily mean a euthanasia law won't be voted in.

(this proposal would make no difference to them

Yes it would. It would legalize their actions. If this passes, it will give them a legal way to kill people. It would legalize genocide.

This isn't internationally sanctioning it, it's leaving it alone. I can't make a proposal which at once deals with the issues of euthanasia and unjustified state executions. This is a game - to make legislation acceptable in a real international body, to make the differentiations between the subtle legal differences you complain about, I'd have to write hundreds of pages, which I can't do and you wouldn't read.

I'd read it. Why wouldn't I ? it would be a work of art -- (OOC: you could put it on a separate website) -- people might refer to your work if they were arguing the same points. It will be a shining example to the world on how to write a good proposal. I'd be honored to read it.

As for the international sanction thing, right now these things happen, but only in some countries. Free nations cannot be seen to support a proposal that allows state-sponsored murder. I mean, they can do it, but they cannot be publicly seen as supporting it, which is what voting for this proposal will achieve. The press will have a field day "country X votes for state-sponsored murder." If this passes, other countries that do not already do this will consider it, because they know they can get away with it now. The world will be better off without this resolution being tabled.

Ok I'll change it to "no willing doctor" happy? There will be instructions on the package, obviously, and if the person wilfully disregards such instructions, resulting in suffering, he is criminalised because he has not performed the act humanely. An examination of the body could determine how they were killed (e.g. how much of the drug is in their blood) and a qualified doctor could testify that what was done would probably cause pain. He could then be punished, because what he has done does not fall under the protective umbrella of this legislation.

Okay, so now you want a totally untrained person to do something that exposes him to a very real risk of prosecution, but does not profit him in any way.

People don't necessarily vote the way they feel. Sometimes they have to vote the other way (due to pressure or arm-twisting or whatever.) So just because everyone is anti-euthanasia doesn't necessarily mean a euthanasia law won't be voted in.

Someone pro-euthanasia must be doing the arm-twisting. Look, this is ridiculous, there's never going to be a situation in which nobody can be found.

Yes it would. It would legalize their actions. If this passes, it will give them a legal way to kill people. It would legalize genocide.

I've looked on the past UN resolution list, and there is nothing to ban these kinds of actions anyway. So these things are legal already, my proposal just doesn't touch them.

I'd read it. Why wouldn't I ? it would be a work of art -- (OOC: you could put it on a separate website) -- people might refer to your work if they were arguing the same points. It will be a shining example to the world on how to write a good proposal. I'd be honored to read it.

Ok, let me put it a different way - I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the legal expertise to write a serious piece of workable legislation that could be used in real-life, and very few people would want to read it. It would not be a shining example of how to write an NS proposal, because if everyone started submitting 100-page documents, very few delegates would have the time or the inclination to read theorugh the proposal list.

As for the international sanction thing, right now these things happen, but only in some countries. Free nations cannot be seen to support a proposal that allows state-sponsored murder. I mean, they can do it, but they cannot be publicly seen as supporting it, which is what voting for this proposal will achieve. The press will have a field day "country X votes for state-sponsored murder." If this passes, other countries that do not already do this will consider it, because they know they can get away with it now. The world will be better off without this resolution being tabled.

Since the UN has made no laws banning murder by any entity or individual (except the murder of POWs), then by your logic any proposal which doesn't mention state-sponsored murder must sanction it.

Okay, so now you want a totally untrained person to do something that exposes him to a very real risk of prosecution, but does not profit him in any way.

If he chooses to, with full knowledge of the possible consequences, that's his choice. If he follows the instructions, he does not risk anything, because accidents wouldn't count.

Look, I'll change a few things to fit what you've mentioned and to satisfy your intense nit-picking as best I can, but in the end you have to accept that there is no way to create a perfectly watertight piece of legislation that is short enough for NS, and still does anything.

Here's what I have now, and will submit in a few minutes:


The legalisation of suicide and voluntary euthanasia

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

For the purposes of this legislation:
- Suicide is defined as an individual killing him/herself
- Voluntary euthanasia is defined as the ending of the life of an individual by another individual, at the express, uncoerced demand of the first individual.
- Involuntary euthanasia is defined as the ending of the life of a terminally or incurably ill patient according to the wishes of friends or family of the patient, when the patient is incapable of making or expressing his/her own decision on the matter.

Postulating that:
- The individual should be sovereign over his or her own body
- Such a fundamental human right is the business of an international body such as the NS UN
- Unnecessary suffering is often prolonged against the wishes of terminally ill patients as they are forced to die naturally

Therefore:
- Every individual considered capable of making adult decisions should have the right to choose to die
- Since some people suffering from terminal illnesses cannot kill themselves (e.g. due to paralysis), for them to die with dignity will often necessitate another individual killing them

The UN hereby resolves that:
- Every individual has the right to commit suicide; those who fail in suicide attempts shall not be punished as criminals in any UN member nation.
- Any individual considered an adult in his/her nation, and considered by a majority of a panel of 3 respected, qualified psychiatrists to be of a sane state of mind and capable of making such a decision, may make and sign a legal document to say that under any certain specified conditions, such as paralysis, in a situation when s/he is unable to kill him/herself, s/he is to be killed in the most humane way possible. That document may be changed at any time when the conditions above are fulfilled. The wishes expressed in the most recent copy of any such document shall be respected, unless the individual is capable of expressing his/her wishes and has changed his/her mind. The document may also specify who (in extremely unlikely circumstances where a willing medical doctor cannot be found) may humanely euthanise the individual in the specified situation without being accused of murder.
- If an adult patient incapable of committing suicide (e.g. due to paralysis) expresses his or her wish to die, and it is decided by a majority of a panel of 5 respected, qualified psychiatrists that s/he is in a sane state of mind, able to make such a decision, that wish should be respected and the patient should be killed in the most humane way possible.
- No individual may be forced to euthanise a patient – if his/her doctor objects to being asked to perform euthanasia, another doctor must be found. In the extremely unlikely event that no willing doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a willing doctor from another country, then another adult individual may be found according to the terms in the aforementioned euthanasia document. In the fantastically unlikely event that no qualified medical professional and none of the specified individuals (if none are specified, it shall be presumed that any adult is acceptable) are prepared and able to perform the act, then the patient's wishes must be ignored until a willing appropriate individual can be found.
- If the euthaniser is not a qualified medical professional, the government shall provide appropriate drugs, and instructions on their use. Said individual shall not be accused of murder unless it can be shown, through the country's legal system, that s/he knowingly and purposefully disregarded the instructions provided and that this resulted in an unnecessarily painful, inhumane death.
- Nations may make the conditions for requesting VOLUNTARY euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. it would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).
- This resolution shall not affect the legal status of involuntary euthanasia (as requested by friends or family of the patient) in any nation; however it shall not be seen as a sanction for the euthanising of patients at the will of the government against the will of family and friends.

Legalize genocide? Internationally sanctioned murder? Are we talking about the same concept?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Had to shorten it to submit it. Not sure if it has worked, because it's not on the list even though it seemed to accept it, so I've emailed admin@nationstates.net to find out what's wrong.

Here's the shortened text I tried to submit, and will submit tomorrow if it hasn't worked.


Human Rights - Strong

Definitions
-Suicide is an individual killing himself
-Voluntary euthanasia is the killing of an individual by another individual, at the express, uncoerced demand of the first individual.
-Involuntary euthanasia is the killing of a terminally or incurably ill patient according to the wishes of friends or family of the patient, when the patient is incapable of making/expressing his own decision on the matter.

Postulating that
-The individual should be sovereign over his own body
-Such a fundamental human right is the business of an international body such as the NS UN
-Unnecessary suffering is often prolonged against the wishes of terminally ill patients as they are forced to die naturally

Therefore
-Every individual considered capable of making adult decisions should have the right to choose to die
-Voluntary euthanasia must be legalized to give those unable to commit suicide the choice to die with dignity

The UN hereby resolves that
-Every individual has the right to attempt to commit suicide without being criminalized
-Any adult individual considered by a majority of a panel of 3 respected, qualified psychiatrists to be of a sane state of mind and capable of making such a decision, may make and sign a legal document to say that under any certain specified conditions, such as paralysis, in a situation when he is unable to kill himself, he is to be killed in the most humane way possible. That document may be changed at any time when the conditions above are fulfilled. The wishes expressed in the most recent copy of any such document shall be respected, unless the individual is capable of expressing his wishes and has changed his mind. The document may also specify who (in extremely unlikely circumstances where a willing medical doctor cannot be found) may humanely euthanise the individual in the specified conditions without criminalisation.
-If an adult patient incapable of committing suicide expresses his wish to die, and it is decided by a majority of a panel of 5 respected, qualified psychiatrists that he is in a sane state of mind, able to make such a decision, that wish should be respected and he should be killed in the most humane way possible.
-No individual may be forced to euthanise a patient – if his doctor objects to doing so, another doctor must be found. In the extremely unlikely event that no willing doctor can be found in the country, and it is not possible to get a willing doctor from another country, then another adult individual may be found according to the terms in the aforementioned euthanasia document. In the fantastically unlikely event that no qualified medical professional and none of the specified individuals (if none are specified, it shall be presumed that any adult is acceptable) are prepared and able to perform the act, then the patient's wishes must be ignored until a willing appropriate individual can be found.
-If the euthaniser is not a qualified medical professional, the government shall provide appropriate drugs, and instructions on their use. Said individual shall not be accused of murder unless it can be shown, through the country's legal system, that he knowingly and purposefully disregarded the instructions provided and that this resulted in an unnecessarily painful, inhumane death.
-Nations may make the conditions for requesting VOLUNTARY euthanasia less stringent then specified above, but they may not make them more stringent (e.g. it would be possible to do away with the requirement for psychiatrists' approval of the patient's mental state, but it would not be possible to increase the number of approvals needed).
-This resolution shall not affect the legal status of involuntary euthanasia (as requested by friends or family of the patient) in any nation; however it shall not be seen as a sanction for the euthanising of patients at the will of the government against the will of family and friends.

this is already a daily issue, I see no reason to try and force this on the UN when any nation can choose for themself if the issue comes up

this is already a daily issue, I see no reason to try and force this on the UN when any nation can choose for themself if the issue comes up

National sovereignity is rooted in individual sovereignty. Wehn a nation abolsihes the sovereignity of the individual, as in abolsihing suicide, it becomes an international issue.

That's a good point, for once.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

National sovereignity is rooted in individual sovereignty. Wehn a nation abolsihes the sovereignity of the individual, as in abolsihing suicide, it becomes an international issue.

Thankyou, I've been searching for the right words to get this point across. Also, I don't see the point of the national sovereignty argument when:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision

The whole idea is that A tries to force his opinions onto B by persuading C to support him and vice versa.

I've looked on the past UN resolution list, and there is nothing to ban these kinds of actions anyway. So these things are legal already, my proposal just doesn't touch them.

Hm, you're some statesman. Looks like I have to spell this out to you. If, at some point in time, they have something we need (say oil for instance) we'd lose our excuse to invade them. Right now we can justify an invasion by saying they're evil people who practice genocide. We'd lose the moral upper hand if this passes. They could make a case against us in the UN, and they'd have this resolution to back them up. Without this, they haven't a resolution to stand on, so we can call it "genocide" and make that an excuse for invasion.

It would not be a shining example of how to write an NS proposal, because if everyone started submitting 100-page documents, very few delegates would have the time or the inclination to read theorugh the proposal list.

(OOC: But then you'd have a more accurate UN, with very few well thought out proposals instead of the proposal spaghetti we have now. The people who evaluate these would not have to wade through tons of sick, silly and unintelligible proposals.)

Since the UN has made no laws banning murder by any entity or individual (except the murder of POWs), then by your logic any proposal which doesn't mention state-sponsored murder must sanction it.

Not necessarily. But it can be (mis) construed that voting for what can be used as an excuse for state-sponsored genocide amounts to support for it.

If he chooses to, with full knowledge of the possible consequences, that's his choice. If he follows the instructions, he does not risk anything, because accidents wouldn't count.

Not even intentional "accidents" ?

Look, I'll change a few things to fit what you've mentioned and to satisfy your intense nit-picking as best I can, but in the end you have to accept that there is no way to create a perfectly watertight piece of legislation that is short enough for NS, and still does anything.

We will do all we can to fight it, and make sure it doesn't pass.

I've looked on the past UN resolution list, and there is nothing to ban these kinds of actions anyway. So these things are legal already, my proposal just doesn't touch them.

Hm, you're some statesman. Looks like I have to spell this out to you. If, at some point in time, they have something we need (say oil for instance) we'd lose our excuse to invade them. Right now we can justify an invasion by saying they're evil people who practice genocide. We'd lose the moral upper hand if this passes. They could make a case against us in the UN, and they'd have this resolution to back them up. Without this, they haven't a resolution to stand on, so we can call it "genocide" and make that an excuse for invasion.

Since the UN has made no laws banning murder by any entity or individual (except the murder of POWs), then by your logic any proposal which doesn't mention state-sponsored murder must sanction it.

Not necessarily. But it can be (mis) construed that voting for what can be used as an excuse for state-sponsored genocide amounts to support for it.

Have you even seen the changes I made to the end? It now reads:

-This resolution shall not affect the legal status of involuntary euthanasia (as requested by friends or family of the patient) in any nation; however it shall not be seen as a sanction for the euthanising of patients at the will of the government against the will of family and friends.

That's fairly watertight for a game.

It would not be a shining example of how to write an NS proposal, because if everyone started submitting 100-page documents, very few delegates would have the time or the inclination to read theorugh the proposal list.

(OOC: But then you'd have a more accurate UN, with very few well thought out proposals instead of the proposal spaghetti we have now. The people who evaluate these would not have to wade through tons of sick, silly and unintelligible proposals.)

A: The UN does not allow you to submit proposals much longer than the final text I put in my last post.
B: I have a feeling that if the UN went like that, and all proposals were the lengths of real life legislation, running for hundreds of pages, you'd be playing pretty much on your own.


I think this nit-picking might be an attempt to justify your opposition to the notion of allowing voluntary euthanasia.

I'll vote for it.

It always seems amazing to me - particularly having watched for years as my Dad died slowly but surely of emphysema, and an elderly friend died from stroke damage in a horrible hospital environment after months of humiliating and bizarre public behaviour that would have horrified the pre-stroke person - that in the UK we can be prosecuted (quite rightly IMHO) for NOT having an animal which is suffering, humanely euthanised, but we are prosecuted if we do that very thing for a human who is suffering.

Also, I think your idea of the pre-chosen document is a perfectly acceptable one.

Sure it's possible that someone unable to communicate might change their mind: I'd say two things in response to that concern.

The first, whilst it sounds a bit callous is a fact - shit happens. Even if you stayed in bed all your life you still can't legislate for the 1 million to 1 chance disaster - as the folks in Lockerbie will testify. Better, from my viewpoint, to give yourself & others permission to euthanise you in the conditions you set, and risk a tiny chance of deciding when it's too late that you really prefer to live a paralysed, incummunicado twilight existence than not to be able to choose at all and to be FORCED to live that way...which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

The other is that things just as sad happen anyway with things the way they are right now - e.g. years ago when I was being shown around a poisons ward of a major hospital I was told about a 13 year old boy who'd swallowed paraquat in a suicide attempt - the medics worked hard to save him, and 3 weeks later he'd changed his mind & wanted to live after all. Which was pretty tough on everybody, because he'd totally f****ed his liver and kidneys etc and died pretty soon after voicing that change of mind.

So you go ahead, let's accept that adults have the right to decide about their own bodies & lives, and also the right to sum up the pro's and con's of the decisions they freely make.

The only proviso - it just occurred to me - should there maybe be a "cooling off" period of 12 months regarding illness and two months regarding accident, where if these happened before that time, a court would have to rule on allowability - as a safeguard against pressure being brought on someone to sign .. it would be a really bad baddie who'd stick with a murder plot through the 12 months and who wouldn't have cooled down if there was anger involved, in 2 months.

Did that last bit make sense? I'm going to bed! Been a looooooooooong day.

dp - sorry.

Although we in Lillibit support the right of the individual to choose to die in what they consider to be a dignified manner, we cannot support any resolution that requires all UN member nations to adhere to this same philosophy. While pro-euthanasia activists and legislators may see this as an advancement in human rights, there is another side to the coin: the right of UN member nations to make their own national laws in accordance with their religious beliefs. To tell the leader and citizens of a country whose official religion prohibits suicide and/or euthanasia that they must put aside their religious convictions in favour of those of the (officially) secular UN is an infringement on national sovereignity. While I strongly encourage individual nations to allow euthanasia, I cannot in good conscience allow the UN to make that decision for them. And so, pumpkin, should this issue come to a vote, I will vote against it just as I have the current euthanasia resolution.

Helen A Handbasket
The Rogue State of Lillibit

I'll vote for it.

It always seems amazing to me - particularly having watched for years as my Dad died slowly but surely of emphysema, and an elderly friend died from stroke damage in a horrible hospital environment after months of humiliating and bizarre public behaviour that would have horrified the pre-stroke person - that in the UK we can be prosecuted (quite rightly IMHO) for NOT having an animal which is suffering, humanely euthanised, but we are prosecuted if we do that very thing for a human who is suffering.

Also, I think your idea of the pre-chosen document is a perfectly acceptable one.

Sure it's possible that someone unable to communicate might change their mind: I'd say two things in response to that concern.

The first, whilst it sounds a bit callous is a fact - shit happens. Even if you stayed in bed all your life you still can't legislate for the 1 million to 1 chance disaster - as the folks in Lockerbie will testify. Better, from my viewpoint, to give yourself & others permission to euthanise you in the conditions you set, and risk a tiny chance of deciding when it's too late that you really prefer to live a paralysed, incummunicado twilight existence than not to be able to choose at all and to be FORCED to live that way...which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

The other is that things just as sad happen anyway with things the way they are right now - e.g. years ago when I was being shown around a poisons ward of a major hospital I was told about a 13 year old boy who'd swallowed paraquat in a suicide attempt - the medics worked hard to save him, and 3 weeks later he'd changed his mind & wanted to live after all. Which was pretty tough on everybody, because he'd totally f****ed his liver and kidneys etc and died pretty soon after voicing that change of mind.

So you go ahead, let's accept that adults have the right to decide about their own bodies & lives, and also the right to sum up the pro's and con's of the decisions they freely make.

The only proviso - it just occurred to me - should there maybe be a "cooling off" period of 12 months regarding illness and two months regarding accident, where if these happened before that time, a court would have to rule on allowability - as a safeguard against pressure being brought on someone to sign .. it would be a really bad baddie who'd stick with a murder plot through the 12 months and who wouldn't have cooled down if there was anger involved, in 2 months.

Did that last bit make sense? I'm going to bed! Been a looooooooooong day.

Um...don't see quite what you mean. But I can't expand the proposal further anyway - NS has a limit on number of characters.

I trust your support for this means you will be voting against the current resolution, unofficial, vague and full of loopholes as it is? And hopefully you will ask others to do the same? I swear, if the against votes don't start catching up, I'm going to start telegramming delegates - which is something I avoid doing.

Well I definately prefer this version over the current UN proposal. I do wonder however, as to whether fully decriminalising suicide is a positive step.

It might prove important to clearly define the difference between suicide and requested euthenasia. I can't reconcile the idea of people being allowed to commit suicide any time they choose, for the mental health of any other involved persons. Surely suicide should be legal if carried out in a government / medical sponsored method.

Even though on one hand I find the idea repulsive, I cannot help but consider the possibility of financial screening for those in search of eutenasia. Those who have the money to compensade the medical profession for dealing with the 'patient' should do so, by force if necessary, or by government sponsorship where appropriate.

Thoughs?

Well I definately prefer this version over the current UN proposal. I do wonder however, as to whether fully decriminalising suicide is a positive step.

It might prove important to clearly define the difference between suicide and requested euthenasia. I can't reconcile the idea of people being allowed to commit suicide any time they choose, for the mental health of any other involved persons. Surely suicide should be legal if carried out in a government / medical sponsored method.

Even though on one hand I find the idea repulsive, I cannot help but consider the possibility of financial screening for those in search of eutenasia. Those who have the money to compensade the medical profession for dealing with the 'patient' should do so, by force if necessary, or by government sponsorship where appropriate.

Thoughs?

Surely if people have the right to have others kill them, not letting them kill themselves is just silly? The right to do what you want with your own body should never be withdrawn. Anyway, what do you expect illegalising suicide to do? Nobody's going to be deterred by the threat of punishment, because they don't expect to survive to be punished. Sure, if they fail, try and help them and persuade them not to try again, but don't remove the choice unless you have good reason to beleive that they're not acting out of the wishes of their normal personality - e.g. temporarliy insane.

To Catholic Europe. You see, not everyone is christian here. And it is not right to call it a murder only because your religious certitude. I'm not a humanist. We in Ice Throne have our own religion, which is based on ancient North virtues and wisdom. Pagan wisdom, which was destroyed in many lands(we all know who crushed so many cultures, humanists of course, and it's not an affront, but facts and history.) Our ancient people, our forefathers never allowed weakness to make them fall. They were too proud for it. And that's why they went into the dense and freezing wood to face the death herself. There is no use of you, you are a vegetable. And this is the way to show to others, are you weak or strong. Also to yourself. If you are old and unusable, and not ready to die, you have wasted your life. Think about it.

Actively encouraging the elderly to commit suicide is going a bit far in an advanced society which can support them and in which they can often play a useful role.

This seems like a sound proposal, one which does not intrude too much upon national soveriegnty, and which wisely leaves open the cases in which an individual is physically unable to express a wish.

It's too bad the other proposal is ahead of you in the hopper; it looks like it will pass.

I have telegrammed all the delegates with 5 or more votes who voted for the current proposal, detailing the loopholes and ambiguities within it and urging them to wait for a clearer piece of legislation which is currently in the works - if the current one fails, I'll submit this at the weekend

The Most Serene Republic of Istahan views this proposal as preferential to the current one, and would vote for it in the event that it came to resolution.

Mostly good feedback so far, and I think we're starting to catch up! Telegramming has been a success thus far!