NationStates Jolt Archive

I put this together before the travesty of a resolution passed yesterday, and have modified it so that it could act as supplementary legislation. It is designed to deal with the issue in a way that does not force nations to accept involuntary euthanasia, and irons out the ridiculous loopholes allowing for state-sponsored murder and the like.

So could somebody please tell me if this would be allowed, or if it would be deleted on the grounds of it being a repeal (game mechanics)? Tell me soon, and I will submit it.

Euthanasia Clarification Bill

Human Rights - Strong

Definitions
-Suicide - an individual killing himself
-Voluntary euthanasia - the killing of an individual by another individual, at the express, uncoerced request of the first individual.
-Involuntary euthanasia - 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
-Current UN law is unclear and loophole-ridden

Therefore
-It must remain possible for individuals capable of making adult decisions to choose to die
-It must not be obligatory to allow involuntary euthanasia, which can be seen as a gross violation of a human's right to life - which should only be removed at the individual's request.

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 living will to say that under any specified conditions, 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 living will. 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 remove 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 in any nation; however it shall not be seen as a sanction for the involuntary euthanising of patients at the will of the government against the will of family and friends.

I'm no expert on procedures, but in real life I have drafted legislation and this looks fine.

Maybe you could take this proposal to Technical? They might be able to give a more expert opinion.

There must be a clause stating that 'If an individual is terminally afflicted and unable to make a choice due to lack of either resonable thought or immobilisation then his/her family may decide wether or ot to have them terminated.

There must be a clause stating that 'If an individual is terminally afflicted and unable to make a choice due to lack of either resonable thought or immobilisation then his/her family may decide wether or ot to have them terminated.

Which is imprecise, since as has been mentioned before, the common flu is a terminal infection if not properly treated.

Perhaps 'terminally afflicted with minimal hope of recovery' or something to that effect.

I am a little concerned about the attempted suicide without being criminalized, as that could lead to several instances of teenage deaths, as suicide rates among otherwise healthy teenagers is quite high in many societies.

thats very nice but u know the little suicide thing may need to be removed

I am not in favor of euthanasia, but if you modify the suicide part I may vote in favor of it. Maybe say something about the suicidee being terminally ill or something along those lines.

Personally I don't like to see people suffer, but euthanasia is wrong morally and ethically.

Ultimately, life itself is terminal. The euthanasia resolution in essence says 'if they're gonna die anyway, just kill them.' That can be applied to ANYBODY and the wording of the resolution is so poor as to allow seemingly infinite interpretations.

All that aside, this is not an issue that the U.N. should ever have had a chance to vote on, and The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint believes that it only passed because so many member nations voted for it without ever once reading the entire resolution or any of the debate on it, or actually applying any mental facilities to deciphering what was actually being said through the poor verbage.

The only amendment that we would support would include U.N. recognition that certain nations find euthanasia abhorrent and grant those nations leave to ignore the resolution and re-criminalize the murder of its citizens.

As that could possibly affect game mechanics, we don't see it happening.

As it is, with Euthanasia's legalisation, the Assembly is working on regulatory legislation that will effectively make it impossible to euthanize anyone.

James Moehlman
Assistant Manager in charge of U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

Personally I don't like to see people suffer, but euthanasia is wrong morally and ethically.

The euthanasia laws have already passed. However there is a loophole that could allow very sick individuals to kill just about anyone they wanted under the guise of 'euthanasia'.

this bill is an effect to ammend it so that only those who have given consent OR who are terminally ill with no hope of recovery and unable to give consent, may be euthanised.

There must be a clause stating that 'If an individual is terminally afflicted and unable to make a choice due to lack of either resonable thought or immobilisation then his/her family may decide wether or ot to have them terminated.

No. I intentionally put in at the bottom that this is to be the nation's choice, unless of course their living will says "kill me if..." and those conditions are fulfilled. To me, euthanasia is a simple matter of giving the individual control of his or her body - without consent, I don't know that it can be justified. There are grey areas, for instance if they are in a coma for several years, but my proposal allows nations to deal with that as they see fit, but the proposal also makes clear that the state cannot kill people on the pretext of euthanasia.

thats very nice but u know the little suicide thing may need to be removed

Why? A - what good does it do to threaten suicidees with punishment that they don't believe they will receive? B - what gives the state the right to tell a person that they cannot commit suicide?

Maybe you could take this proposal to Technical? They might be able to give a more expert opinion.

Thanks, I'll do that.

There must be a clause stating that 'If an individual is terminally afflicted and unable to make a choice due to lack of either resonable thought or immobilisation then his/her family may decide wether or ot to have them terminated.

No. I intentionally put in at the bottom that this is to be the nation's choice, unless of course their living will says "kill me if..." and those conditions are fulfilled. To me, euthanasia is a simple matter of giving the individual control of his or her body - without consent, I don't know that it can be justified. There are grey areas, for instance if they are in a coma for several years, but my proposal allows nations to deal with that as they see fit, but the proposal also makes clear that the state cannot kill people on the pretext of euthanasia.

thats very nice but u know the little suicide thing may need to be removed

Why? A - what good does it do to threaten suicidees with punishment that they don't believe they will receive? B - what gives the state the right to tell a person that they cannot commit suicide?

Maybe you could take this proposal to Technical? They might be able to give a more expert opinion.

Thanks, I'll do that.

the psychiatrists must be state chosen

the psychiatrists must be state chosen

I don't think this should be specified. If I insisted on them being state-chosen, that wouldn't work in anarchies (however, this law could still function, because the proposal allows for less stringent rules - including no rules), and it might also put the law behind regimes selecting only psychiatrists who would never approve euthanasia. If they could not be state chosen, this could be seen to eliminate any doctor qualified with national medical associations linked to the government, in countries who have such systems.

I have made a proposal that overturns this and the many other bad resolutions.

Please urge your delegate to support "United Nations Stabilization"!

Browse to the proposal list (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/34598/page=UN_proposal) and use the search box at the bottom of the page to find Stabilization .

MammonLord

Brokers, your proposal still doesn't pass the test of game mechanics. (yes, I've seen the revised versions). You're tossing the baby out with the bathwater. As an RD I can't support it.

I'm recommending that folks stick with the Myopia proposal above. Myopia is runing it past the mods as we speak, and I think their approach is going to be for more effective at addressing the problems with the Euthanasia bill than your sweeping reforms in any case.

The Most Serene Republic of Istahan will lend our support to _Myopia_'s proposal, and should it come to quorum, Istahan will vote for it.

I'm torn over the issue personally. While in removing the loopholes in the previous resolution it prevents horrible abuse of the law, the loopholes were actually helpful to nations such as my own, who oppose euthanasia. The resolution was so loosely worded that it was still possible to outlaw euthanasia within a nation simply by making it impossible.

So, the question for me is, do I support this proposal to prevent corruption in other nations, or oppose it to uphold moral standards within my own?

Euthanasia Clarification Bill

-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 living will to say that under any specified conditions, 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.

[. . .]

-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.


We have a gripe with the requirement that an individual must be found to be sane. It is entirely possible that an irreversible state of dementia is itself sufficient cause to desire to end one's life, and that to forbid the right to terminate one's life to someone suffering an irreversible and intolerable demented state would actually have the effect of a perverse incentive, encouraging those who know of impending dementia to commit suicide prematurely, while still "sane," for fear of not being allowed to do it later.

However, we do believe the involvement of psychiatrists to be beneficial, if only to prevent the suicide of an individual based solely on transient, treatable conditions such as delusions or undue influence by others, especially religious cults which convince people to will their properties and possessions to the cult and then commit suicide.

We have a gripe with the requirement that an individual must be found to be sane. It is entirely possible that an irreversible state of dementia is itself sufficient cause to desire to end one's life, and that to forbid the right to terminate one's life to someone suffering an irreversible and intolerable demented state would actually have the effect of a perverse incentive, encouraging those who know of impending dementia to commit suicide prematurely, while still "sane," for fear of not being allowed to do it later.

However, we do believe the involvement of psychiatrists to be beneficial, if only to prevent the suicide of an individual based solely on transient, treatable conditions such as delusions or undue influence by others, especially religious cults which convince people to will their properties and possessions to the cult and then commit suicide.

This issue is very sensitive even between pro-euthanasia campaigners, because some are of your opinion, but some believe that they should protect the mentally ill from themselves, which is why my proposal allows nations to have less stringent systems (like it says, you could get rid of those requirements) but not to have more stringent systems (i.e. you couldn't insist that, say, 10 psychiatrists approve everything)

Of course, this is now a moot point, as the mods have told me that modifier bills such as these also count as game mechanics proposals, even though they aren't full repeals - I'm not going to submit it, because it will be deleted anyway, and I don't want to get a tarnished record (I think they might have some kind of "three strikes" thing for dodgy proposals?)

Sorry guys, looks like we have to put up with this legislation or find loopholes (ironic, eh? we campaigned against the loopholes, but now we rely on them to maintain a sane system :lol: )