NationStates Jolt Archive


Draft: Euthanasia Convention

Logopia
31-08-2007, 21:21
Please note the latest changes:

New thread for submitted version (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539690)
20070920 Latest Version (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13070139&postcount=48)
20070909 Major rewrite (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13040977&postcount=44):
20070903 Preamble rewritten (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13022960&postcount=24):


----

Euthanasia Convention
Category Human Rights
Strength Mild

The United Nations

AWARE that the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide is a profoundly divisive and intensely debated subject,

UNDERSTANDING the different values that result in the diversity of opinions on these subject,

NOTING the precedent of resolutions and repeals on this mater; and that these have resulted in little more than wearing discussion and poorly written legislation,

ACKNOWLEDGING that an individual’s right to assisted suicide or euthanasia is not necessarily an international concern and therefore it is not the duty of the UN to decide on this matter,

RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is acceptable to many cultures as a means to terminate grave and unnecessary suffering,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the UN’s role in protecting human rights internationally

HOPING to reach an agreeable compromise that will end further futile debate,

1-DEFINES euthanasia as a deliberate action or omission of action which results in the humane, painless and quick death of a sapient individual and is requested by said individual or, when legally allowed, by the individuals legal guardians.

2-ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit assisted suicide or any other such form of euthanasia, but in no way requires or encourages them to dos so.

3- MANDATES that euthanasia be only performed on individuals suffering from severe chronic, terminal, or severe incurable illness or injury, that significantly and irreparably compromises the individual’s quality of life.

4-DECLARES that no one has the right to request euthanasia for another, exception being, when permitted under local law, the legal guardians of an individual who is on a permanent vegetative state.

5-MANDATES that a request for euthanasia shall be considered valid only when it is made voluntarily, explicitly, under no coercion, fully understanding the decision and its consequences, and aware of the nature, chances of recovery, expected quality of life or any other relevant aspects of the illness affecting the individual.

6-FURTHER DECLARES that nations choosing to allow euthanasia may set any other restriction to its application as they see fit.

7-AFFIRMS the right of patients desiring assisted medical suicide to travel to countries that allow this procedure for the purpose of procuring it, provided no legal impediment exists.

8- DECLARES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for euthanasia shall be considered as a criminal offense and punishable as attempted murder

9-REQUIRES that nations who choose the euthanasia of minors allow it only under the request of the minor and the consent of the minors guardians.

10-MANDATES that any euthanasia procedure be performed and supervised by qualified medical personnel

11-STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations who choose to allow any form of euthanasia to grant medical personnel the legal right to refuse to participate in any such procedure.

12-URGES member nations to facilitate access to the highest possible quality of life for those patients who suffer from severe chronic or terminal illness

13-ENCOURAGES medical institutions in nations who choose to legalize euthanasia, to provide counseling and psychological support for the patients, guardians and families of patients when a decision for euthanasia is to be made.
Logopia
31-08-2007, 21:24
This is obviously a replace effort, given the impending repeal looming over this assembly.

The Logopian Delegation welcomes your feedback, we are especially concerned about the issues of legality, (given it has a lot of optional content). We are aiming at a resolution that will be agreeable to all but the most radical on either side of the euthanasia debate. We believe it would be most healthy to allow individual governments to decide the legality or illegality of this issue, but at the same time set a minimal standard that governments wishing to legalize would have to respect.

We recognize that any resolution on this subject needs to be a bulletproof, if not flawless piece of legislation. We acknowledge this proposal is far from it. In the interest of coming closer to this goal, please do be merciless with this draft.

OOC: On a side note, what is the convention during the drafting process? Post the new modified draft, post the intended modifications, or modifying the original post?
Quintessence of Dust
31-08-2007, 21:40
The logic of the preamble is fairly baffling. There is no sense including random lines just for the sake of it. For example, any proposal that grants nations the authority to deny the right to refuse treatment is plainly not 'recognising the UN’s role in protecting human rights internationally' (or rather, it is 'recognising that the UN need not protect human rights internationally'). Equally, the 'acknowledging' clause weasels its way into nonsense: if it is taken that the right to die is 'not necessarily of international concern', it can at most only be shown that 'it is not necessarily the duty of the UN to legislate on it'. You have not shown what precedent was established by previous resolutions and repeals - especially given 3 of the 4 proposals on the matter have contained internal contradictions.

We would not support this proposal. An issue being divisive or controversial is no reason not to discuss it. Almost any political position is likely to be disputed by someone; those taking an opposition stance resorting to quivering anger only makes it more likely that you're doing something right. Besides, isn't divergence of opinions actually a very good argument for a right to euthanasia? Unless we are to invoke some quasi-Marxist notion of a collective consciousness - certainly nothing any government remotely interested in freedom of enterprise would fall prey to - we have to accept that individuals have individual beliefs. If euthanasia is against a person's beliefs, it would be as abhorrent to force them to submit to it as it would to force it from another who had decided in favour of it.

And if anyone calls that an endorsement of 'individual sovereignty', I will eat them.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
South Lorenya
31-08-2007, 23:25
I've always been annoyed when people start resolutions with a multiline runon sentence that has the first word of every line in ALLCAPS...

Also, instead of flooding it with legalese, why not do something like this:

"No nation shall prevent any of their citizens form killing themselves in a way that harms nobody else."
Flibbleites
01-09-2007, 04:25
OOC: On a side note, what is the convention during the drafting process? Post the new modified draft, post the intended modifications, or modifying the original post?

OOC: If I were you, I'd cover your butt and do all three. Post a modified draft with the changes highlighted, then edit the original post to prevent late comers from coming in, reading the original post and then complaining about things that have already been changed.
Cavirra
01-09-2007, 09:25
1-DEFINES euthanasia as a deliberate action or omission of action which results in the humane, painless and quick death of a sapient individual and is requested by said individual or, when legally allowed, by the individuals legal guardians.Not bad...

2-ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit assisted suicide or any other such form of euthanasia, but in no way requires or encourages them to dos so.Again not bad but correct typo next last word (dos) to (do)

3- MANDATES that euthanasia be only performed on individuals suffering from severe chronic, terminal, or severe incurable illness or injury, that significantly and irreparably compromises the individual’s quality of life.With todays medical procdures and so on what is incurable? Simply because a nation has not reached the medical level to say cure a cold or flu can one say that is an incurable illness and after a period of time euthanise those that may get either or repeatedly catch them.

4-DECLARES that no one has the right to request euthanasia for another, exception being, when permitted under local law, the legal guardians of an individual who is on a permanent vegetative state. What is legal and what is not legal as far as quardian comes into play here? How does a guardian have the skills to decide what is best for another? A kid gets flu and has it for several days thus the guardian says enough.....

5-MANDATES that a request for euthanasia shall be considered valid only when it is made voluntarily, explicitly, under no coercion, fully understanding the decision and its consequences, and aware of the nature, chances of recovery, expected quality of life or any other relevant aspects of the illness affecting the individual.Here you conflict with 3 above in that you have mandated --terminal, or severe incurable illness or injury-- and now give hope they might survive this..

6-FURTHER DECLARES that nations choosing to allow euthanasia may set any other restriction to its application as they see fit.So back to square one it is going to be banned in some and allowed to much in others and all points in between so what are you doing here.....?

7-AFFIRMS the right of patients desiring assisted medical suicide to travel to countries that allow this procedure for the purpose of procuring it, provided no legal impediment exists.If legal includes funding for such travel then no problems as governments should not be paying for folks to run off to Timbuck2 to die... when they can die at home cheaper and not burden family with added funeral expenses.

8- DECLARES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for euthanasia shall be considered as a criminal offense and punishable as attempted murderIf a person is dead prove I coerced them to do anything if they are only witness to such and act.. Also we have no laws of Attempted Murder just Murder... if you try and fail then nobody cares but the person you tried to kill may come looking for you... then kill you and face murder charges unless he too misses and lives another day to try again as do you...

9-REQUIRES that nations who choose the euthanasia of minors allow it only under the request of the minor and the consent of the minors guardians.Again an issue of is this minor able to make a sound choice or not make one. Guardians also on making a sound choice. If junior has brain cancer and wants to strap on a bomb and walk to the mall and kill himself in front of everyone because he feels he must... do guardians give consent help him strap on the bomb and drive him to mall.

10-MANDATES that any euthanasia procedure be performed and supervised by qualified medical personnelSimple and well put. We fully agree it should be done by qualified sadistic killer.

11-STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations who choose to allow any form of euthanasia to grant medical personnel the legal right to refuse to participate in any such procedure.We agree as nobody should be made to put a gun to the head of another person and pull trigger but if their duties call for caring for that gun then they should be required to do their duties to see that it is in proper working order for when needed.

12-URGES member nations to facilitate access to the highest possible quality of life for those patients who suffer from severe chronic or terminal illnessNot sure why in this you're promoting death. Only here you now want to save lives keep them living..

13-ENCOURAGES medical institutions in nations who choose to legalize euthanasia, to provide counseling and psychological support for the patients, guardians and families of patients when a decision for euthanasia is to be made.Should have been one of the top items here not down at bottom.. Also question of what do you say to people who has the right words knows how to deal with this... those that suffer most end up dead... doctors move on to another patient send out new bills. Shrinks don't know what's on their minds most of time but know if they got paid or not for services.

Poppa Veinnow,
Chief Executionor Cavirrian Prisons
The Sapphire Isle
01-09-2007, 09:26
Personally, I think palliative care should be available before the right to euthanasia.
And, the person should have to go through an interview alone with their family doctor and an unrelated doctor first, to try and reduce the risk of relations convincing an elderly relative to die for financial gain.

I do think that the draft would need a lot of changing- but, if, as at present, the repeal seems to be taking place, then there'll be sure to be a new legislation on the issue.
The Most Glorious Hack
01-09-2007, 12:37
With todays medical procdures and so on what is incurable?Just because the Hack is able to cure cancer, it doesn't mean every nation can. Assuming that all nations have the same level of healthcare as you do is a bit presumptuous.

Simply because a nation has not reached the medical level to say cure a cold or flu can one say that is an incurable illness and after a period of time euthanise those that may get either or repeatedly catch them.Ridiculous. This is the kind of nitpicking that gives these halls their bad reputation. Furthermore, I question your nation's willingness to classify a cold as "chronic, terminal, or severe".

How does a guardian have the skills to decide what is best for another?The same way they have such skills for everything else in the world?

Also we have no laws of Attempted Murder just Murder... if you try and fail then nobody cares but the person you tried to kill may come looking for you...Good for your nation. Most nations have laws against attempted murder. Perhaps I'll go to your nation and burn someone's legs off. It wasn't assault, it was attempted murder. I should have aimed higher.

Again an issue of is this minor able to make a sound choice or not make one.Minors are assumed to be unable to make such choices. That's why they're minors.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
The Narnian Council
02-09-2007, 03:20
Before this draft, the nations of the UN were split on this matter. Some leaders strongly disagree with the practice of euthanasia (Cavirra, for example). And obviously, others agree that euthansia is a beneficial practice. Both wish to see their opinion accepted by the majority, hence the tiresome debate. These facts are already established, yes?

If so, one must ask if Logopia's draft merely DEFINES the term and practice of 'euthanasia' (in an attempt to bring those - who are not so adamant about the issue - together) or whether this is just another piece of legislation aiming to see euthanasia passed as acceptable. Upon what grounds the Narnian Council stands on in this issue, does not matter. What matters is the personal opinion that Logopia seems to be pressing at this point:


ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit assisted suicide or any other such form of euthanasia....

MANDATES that euthanasia be only performed on individuals suffering from...

It seems Logopia is pushing to legalize euthanasia, and to keep it that way. This is typical of the issue's debates. This is not a proposal to end this controversy. This proposal attempts to legalize euthanasia, and to make it acceptable in the eyes of the UN.

This gives one half of the debators full satisfaction. It legalizes euthanasia. The other half, opposed to euthanasia, are simply given the finger and practically told 'well you don't have to enforce the law in your nation if you don't WANT to".

This proposal is entirely based upon the legalization of euthanasia:

MANDATES that a request for euthanasia shall be considered valid only...

REQUIRES that nations who choose the euthanasia of minors...

MANDATES that any euthanasia procedure be performed...

ENCOURAGES medical institutions in nations who choose to legalize euthanasia...

Are we now required to go into the definition of purpose of a law? A law is a set of enforceable rules that ALL individuals within the body must bide by. This doesn't even meet those requirements. How would this resolution be enforceable, given that nations may choose if they want to legalize euthanasia or not?

HOPING to reach an agreeable compromise that will end further futile debate...

This proposal does nothing to end this terribly drawn-out and already exhausted debate - because as pointed out already - the LEGALISATION of euthanasia is hotly contested, and that is what this proposal attempts to do:


STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations who choose to allow any form of euthanasia...
Livermoria
02-09-2007, 04:00
It seems Logopia is pushing to legalize euthanasia, and to keep it that way.
Euthanasia is legal in the sense that individual nations may pass laws allowing and regulating euthanasia within their borders. Or do you disagree with this fact?

This proposal states that if a state legalizes euthanasia, its legislation on this topic must meet a certain set of standards to make sure that no pseudolegal basis is created for killing off citizens randomly. Do you read it as forcing individual nations to legalize euthanasia? If yes, where in the proposal do you read that?

This proposal attempts to legalize euthanasia, and to make it acceptable in the eyes of the UN.
Euthanasia is acceptable in the eyes of the UN so long as the UN passes no resolution outlawing it.

The other half, opposed to euthanasia, are simply given the finger and practically told 'well you don't have to enforce the law in your nation if you don't WANT to".
The proposal "in no way requires or encourages" nations to pass laws legalizing euthanasia.

How would this resolution be enforceable, given that nations may choose if they want to legalize euthanasia or not?
The only enforcement issue is with countries that do allow the killing of people, but do not meet the standards set forth in the proposal. If your country does not allow euthanasia, the proposal has no effect whatsoever on your country. It is automagically enforced, so to speak.
Cavirra
02-09-2007, 09:45
Minors are assumed to be unable to make such choices. That's why they're minors.As we dust the ashes off from the burnt hair we wish to remind the Honorable Vermithrax of the item this was from in the proposal..

9-REQUIRES that nations who choose the euthanasia of minors allow it only under the request of the minor and the consent of the minors guardians. Please note the part of this that says allow it only under the request of the minor and this is REQUIRED first before the guardians consent is given so who decides and talks to this minor about this as an action to end their pain and suffering without violating other parts of this proposal. Could these guardians not be under other parts be brought to trail for something.... as well as even his own doctor who would consider such actions.

Like in: 8- DECLARES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for euthanasia shall be considered as a criminal offense and punishable as attempted murder


As for the issue of healt care and the level of care available in any nation.. it would be wiser to bring a nations to a higher more equal level than to bring one nation down to another of lower level... Thus a policy of sharing medical information and care to improve lives in all member nations would be better than one dealing with the taking of a life... as we still have war open as an option for that....

Poppa Veinnow,
Chief Executionor Cavirrian Prisons
The Most Glorious Hack
02-09-2007, 12:26
Please note the part of this that says and this is REQUIRED first before the guardians consent is given so who decides and talks to this minor about this as an action to end their pain and suffering without violating other parts of this proposal.It simply states that the minor must first request. There's nothing forbidding the telling of the miner that it is an option.

Could these guardians not be under other parts be brought to trail for something.... as well as even his own doctor who would consider such actions."Coercion" is a potent word. There's a difference between "Hey, you know, that terminal caner sucks; have you considered euthanasia?" and "Sign this paper giving us the right to kill yourself! Sign it now! Now!" or even, "You know... that terminal cancer is a pretty major drain on your parents' savings... pretty soon, they'll have to sell the house, just to keep giving you the meds that are really only giving you a few extra months of life. Wouldn't it be better for them if you were to end it?"

It may be a fine line, but the line is still there.

Thus a policy of sharing medical information and care to improve lives in all member nations would be better than one dealing with the taking of a life...Perhaps, but given the wildly different nations in the UN (from tech level to reality to native species and beyond), that may be rather impossible.

However, there's a desk right over there with some paper and a pen. You're more than welcome to give it a shot...


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Cavirra
02-09-2007, 15:26
Perhaps, but given the wildly different nations in the UN (from tech level to reality to native species and beyond), that may be rather impossible. Is it not the cause of the UN to bring all nations to equality in all areas to prevent a need for wars because each has the same chances of living a good long life without fear of such things as a bad cold or flu or cancer or virus, even a toothache... Or just to nit pick ideas and only weaken the weakest and give more to the richest....


However, there's a desk right over there with some paper and a pen. You're more than welcome to give it a shot...
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
We due to national policy have chosen to stay out of the UN but still keep an open mind and eye on them.. as many of the actions that come into resolutions here effect in light our own nation.. as we trade with members who may buy certain items or procedures or whatever from us thus if the UN bans members using them or limits or restricts how they made then we are in the end effected...

Poppa Veinnow,
Chief Executionor Cavirrian Prisons

OOC: We share a computer and can't join so we just watch now then open mouth insert foot and suck...;}...
Logopia
02-09-2007, 18:12
Honored Ambassadors

The Logopian Government and I personally thank your valuable comments. The preamble definitely needs some serious reworking. While I believe i might be able to explain how the preamble ties to the "action" clauses, clearly a preamble that needs explaining is far from adequate.

As for the action clauses, I am getting the feeling that they are not without merit. Ill try to fine tune those that seem more confusing.

For some of the point's that have been made:

Personally, I think palliative care should be available before the right to euthanasia.
And, the person should have to go through an interview

You'll notice that clause 6 would allow your nation to require this before euthatnasia is allowed. As we see it, the provisions under clause 5 are enough to make a request for euthanasia acceptable, please note it explicitly forbids coercion. While I personally think your interview idea is a good one, the intent of this proposal is not to tell national governments how to legalize euthanasia, but rather what are the minimal standards they must observe.

That being said, I do not discount adding a clause that explicitly forbids advicing for euthanasia for financial or other personal gain.

Here you conflict with 3 above in that you have mandated --terminal, or severe incurable illness or injury-- and now give hope they might survive this..

Clause three allow euthanasia for patients who suffer form severe chronic, terminal, or severe incurable illness or injury, that significantly and irreparably compromises the individual’s quality of life. Therefore it would allow euthanasia in patients with a chance for recovery. We fail to see the contradiction.

Not sure why in this you're promoting death. Only here you now want to save lives keep them living..

Since this resolution explicitly says that nations are not required to legalize euthanasia, then we believe it is only fair to encourage nations to provide the best posible care for their most seriously ill.

I've always been annoyed when people start resolutions with a multiline runon sentence that has the first word of every line in ALLCAPS...

Hmmm, I was under the impression that this was a generally acceptable style. I'll certainly make a more comprehensive study of past legistlations and try to determine if there is a better format
Flibbleites
02-09-2007, 22:49
We due to national policy have chosen to stay out of the UN but still keep an open mind and eye on them.. as many of the actions that come into resolutions here effect in light our own nation.. as we trade with members who may buy certain items or procedures or whatever from us thus if the UN bans members using them or limits or restricts how they made then we are in the end effected...

Poppa Veinnow,
Chief Executionor Cavirrian PrisonsSo either not being a UN member causes your hands to be broken, or you don't know that you could write a proposal and have it submitted by someone who is a UN member.

Hmmm, I was under the impression that this was a generally acceptable style. I'll certainly make a more comprehensive study of past legistlations and try to determine if there is a better format

You write your proposal in whatever style you want. If someone doesn't like the style you choose, call them a troll and move on.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Yelda
02-09-2007, 23:19
Hmmm, I was under the impression that this was a generally acceptable style. I'll certainly make a more comprehensive study of past legistlations and try to determine if there is a better format
It is an acceptable style. In fact it's the most common style used by proposal authors.
The Narnian Council
03-09-2007, 01:01
I'll try to clarify what I attempted to explain in my previous post.

Is there a current resolution that recognizes a member nation's right to practice euthanasia already (even if that nation has a choice to do so or not?)

If so, we must ask why we are attempting to pass this proposal as a resolution, when there is already another that makes this point.

If not (which I assume is the case), then Logopia is attempting to 'legalize' euthanasia - in other words - giving nations the 'legal right' to practice euthanasia if they want to. It does not matter whether this 'ideal' was already accepted by the UN. What matters is an 'ideal' being shifted to 'law'.

This intentionally makes it very difficult for one party. The party opposed to euthanasia. The party supporting euthanasia can simply stroll about saying - we've legalized euthanasia, we are practicing euthanasia, we are 'lawfully' given the right to practice euthanasia - but if you have a problem with that, just don't practice euthanasia yourself and keep your mouth shut.

The Narnian Council believes that this proposal is under the guise of a 'balancer' and a 'peacemaker' between the two parties, with its real intention being the significant (and already balanced!) shift of influence in favor of euthanasia supporters.

Perhaps this is not Logopia's intention. If not, then I suggest that major changes should be made to the draft to rectify this imbalance.
Pugliasium
03-09-2007, 03:48
He's one Nation's opinion: why waste time thinking about killing people when we can try to cure terminal patients. Not to sound cruel, but with terminal patients doctors can try all kinds of things, and study them, it would be a shame to kill them off when their is still so much more to learn. Who knows? Maybe through their death something important about the late stages of a desease might be discovered and a cure or treatment can be found!

Everything happens for a reason.
Flibbleites
03-09-2007, 04:21
Is there a current resolution that recognizes a member nation's right to practice euthanasia already (even if that nation has a choice to do so or not?)No, the UN just repealed it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
The Narnian Council
03-09-2007, 04:46
Thank you Mr. Bob Fibble.

Pugliasium - I'm not sure if the practice you suggested would be entirely beneficial and humane. Think of the extra tests/procedures the patient would have to endure. If consented to, an autopsy may suit after the individual has become deceased, if the advancement of science was the examiner's intention. I believe that this is already practiced in many nations.

However, this leads us away from our original discussion.
The Most Glorious Hack
03-09-2007, 06:53
Is it not the cause of the UN to bring all nations to equality in all areas [etc]From what I've seen? It's a tool used by member states to ram their mores and ideals down everyone else's throat. The trick is to minimize the discomfort and choking. Insert your own "gag reflex" joke here.

Or just to nit pick ideas and only weaken the weakest and give more to the richest...This is a more cynical outlook than I'd use. Many, many proposals here try very hard to do the opposite. As the good Doctor would say: "Commie bastards stealing from the people who earn it to the shiftless layabouts."

You're spot on about the nitpicking, though.

We due to national policy have chosen to stay out of the UN but still keep an open mind and eye on them..Same here, but I don't suggest legislation.


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack



OOC: We share a computer and can't join so we just watch now then open mouth insert foot and suck...;}...I never had my character tell you to submit a Proposal; she told you to write one. As Flib pointed out, non-members write Proposals all the time. I've been a ghost co-author on at least one myself.
Logopia
03-09-2007, 15:27
why waste time thinking about killing people when we can try to cure terminal patients

We agree, seeking cures is definitely a most noble goal. We would in principle support a resolution that seeked better health care in the world. We mantain, however, that the issue of euthanasia is relevant enough that it deserves the U.N's attention.

If not (which I assume is the case), then Logopia is attempting to 'legalize' euthanasia - in other words - giving nations the 'legal right' to practice euthanasia if they want to.

As has been said before, euthanasia is already legal. There is no UN resolution that makes it unlawful. Then again, if a nation wants to forbid it within their borders, then it is already also perfectly legal. With this proposal, both of these "ideals" would be shifted into law.
This intentionally makes it very difficult for one party. The party opposed to euthanasia.

We'd much appreciate it if the good ambassador cared to elaborate on this point. The only clause that would apply to nations opposing euthanasia is clause 13, and you’ll notice that it doesn’t place an obligation, it merely encourages. This proposal in fact only places restrictions on nations who choose to legalize. I would contend that this makes it more difficult for the party in favor of euthanasia.

The party supporting euthanasia can simply stroll about saying - we've legalized euthanasia, we are practicing euthanasia, we are 'lawfully' given the right to practice euthanasia - but if you have a problem with that, just don't practice euthanasia yourself and keep your mouth shut.

The opposite is also true. Nations opposed to euthanasia can stroll about saying “we’ve forbidden euthanasia, and there isn’t squat you can do about it, so [insert expletive here].”

This proposal would prevent either side from imposing its view on the other, and this is precisely one of its purposes.
The Eternal Kawaii
03-09-2007, 18:24
In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

Esteemed representatives, we rise in opposition to this draft. I'm sure you're expecting the denouncement of the evil practice of euthanasia from our nation's delegation, and rest assured, should this come to quorum we will not fail there. However, we would like to point out a more egregious problem with this draft, namely its deceptive nature. Consider two clauses in its preamble:

AWARE that the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide is a profoundly divisive and intensely debated subject,

and

ACKNOWLEDGING that an individual’s right to assisted suicide or euthanasia is not necessarily an international concern and therefore it is not the duty of the UN to decide on this matter,

Now then. How, if the so-called "right to euthanasia" is so devisive a topic in the first clause above, can the author presume that there actually exists such a right to be "not necessarily an international concern" in the second clause?

Esteemed representatives, we are saddened by the representative of Logopia's use of rhetorical subterfuge here. Is it the intent of the representative to have the NSUN state it believes in the practice of killing the terminally ill? If so, they should state as such, clearly and plainly. Merely assuming such a "right" exists, and framing the debate in those terms, prejudges the matter. It dismisses out of hand the arguments of those nations like ours that reject such a mercenary attitude towards human life.

Given the profound subject matter here, we expect better clarity of principle on behalf of this body. Either demand outright that the NSUN recognize the so-called "right to euthanasia", or demand that such an obscenity be outlawed, but do not try to have it both ways.
Logopia
03-09-2007, 22:30
Honored Ambassadors

We have re-written the proposals preamble:
-------
The United Nations

Aware that the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide is a profoundly divisive and intensely debated subject,

Understanding the different values that result in the diversity of opinions on these subject,

Believing that deciding if euthanasia is to be permitted or not lies within the rightful domain of individual nations,

Concerned about the potential for abuse that the legalization of euthanasia implies, and desiring to minimize it:

DEFINES: ...

:


-------

We believe this simpler approach is much more logical, and that it is clear enough in stating the proposals intent.

The vagueness and other shortcomings of our previous prologue was in no way an attempt to deceit or mislead, but rather an unfortunate consequence of lack of skill and probably insufficient care.

As always the Logopian Delegation thanks your valuable insight
The Narnian Council
03-09-2007, 22:59
I'm afraid that Logopia has either overlooked The Narnian Council's statement on this page, or has refused to provide an answer to it. Please reread the second post from the top. You will do well to reply.

I trust this doesn't show hesitation or reluctance...
Logopia
04-09-2007, 00:18
Honored Representative of the Narnian Council

I am not sure exactly what statement you refer, I'll try to recapitulate

You asked if there is a proposal already legalizing euthanasia, I didn't reply to that, but honorable representative from The Most Glorious Hack amde it clear that the answer no.

You asked if this proposal seeks to legalize euthanasia. Since it is already implicitly legal, the answer is it seeks to make it explicitly legal and, on the other hand also to affirm that nations who don't approve euthanasia do not have to.

You mentioned concerns that this proposal "makes it very difficult for one party". If you reread my post #22 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13021906&postcount=22) you'll see that I've explained how I fail to see what exactly makes it difficult on the party opposing euthanasia. I believe this also addressed your statement about "shift of influence in favor of euthanasia supporters"

If I am overlooking something, I apologize and ask that you please point it out.
The Eternal Kawaii
04-09-2007, 02:25
You asked if this proposal seeks to legalize euthanasia. Since it is already implicitly legal, the answer is it seeks to make it explicitly legal and, on the other hand also to affirm that nations who don't approve euthanasia do not have to.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Logopia, this is precisely the "having it both ways" approach that we object to. If euthanasia is "implicitly legal" as they claim, then what is the point of making it "explicitly legal" while at the same time affirming other nations' right to outlaw it?

What exactly are the esteemed representative's intentions here? To legalize euthanasia across the NSUN? If so, they should state as such. If it is merely to codify the status quo, then why bother bringing this up for debate in the first place?
Livermoria
04-09-2007, 03:00
If euthanasia is "implicitly legal" as they claim, then what is the point of making it "explicitly legal" while at the same time affirming other nations' right to outlaw it?
If that were the only effect of the proposal, it would be much shorter. The proposal is not just there to codify the status quo and be done with it; it codifies the status quo of leaving the general yes/no issue to national governments. However (and as stated before), it also defines a set of standards that must be met by euthanasia legislation in places that choose to legalize it.

To reiterate: For nations that choose not to allow euthanasia, this indeed just means the status quo internally; but it also means that their neighbors absolutely cannot turn into human slaughterhouses under the cover of "euthanasia". It seems to us that even by many states that oppose euthanasia this should be regarded as an improvement over the status quo, even if it falls short of the (unrealistic) goal of an absolute UN-wide ban on euthanasia that some nations might favor.

Assuming that without the passing of this proposal euthanasia will not be practiced, on legal grounds, in any UN member state, would be head-in-the-sand politics ignoring the fact that many UN members indeed have laws allowing euthanasia.
The Narnian Council
04-09-2007, 03:05
You must forgive my rather harsh tone in this matter, honored representative of Logopia - as the Narnian Council feels strongly about this issue.

We had not fully understood your intentions in this matter (nor do we now). Thank you for graciously re-explaining, though I'll attempt to re-state my objection (take some time to view it, as it is quite lengthy).

Probably in comparison with the Eternal Kawaii's opinion:

We have a problem when proposals are put forward to bring ideals (that are best suited as ideals - or mos maiorum) to transform them into law. The ideal of - "what is good for me might not be good for you, and I will respect that" - is otherwise called the 'theory of relativsm'. There are no such 'laws' enforcing the theory of relativsm. One must ask, why is that?

The recently repealed resolution: "Individual Self Determination" was based upon relativist principles also.

Your proposal runs parallel with the theory of relativsm also. It attempts to allow those who think euthanasia is benefical to actually practice it in their own country - and those who think otherwise to ban it. There it is again: "What is good for me might not be good for you." This might be alright as an ideal, but why does a 'law' such as this fall flat on its face? Simply because:

Your proposal FORCES others to respect relativsm! What if other nations don't want to respect what others think are good for themselves? Well, I can guess that Logopia would say - "too bad, this is the UN buddy". But by saying that, you are contradicting the values that are included in your very proposal!
Those values attempt to introduce relativsm, which is contradictory to itself because it claims itself as the superior value!

Can you understand how this sort of reasoning fails? We simply cannot logically allow BOTH beliefs to reign supreme, as that sort of reasoning is simply and utterly illogical.

Also, I'll clarify the stance at which both parties stand at. Those who support euthanasia are primarily interested in their practicing of it in their own country. Most are not interested in pushing this internationally, they just wish to extend civil rights in their own nation.
Those that oppose euthanasia feel that this practice comes very close to what we define as 'murder' and 'suicide'. Those that oppose are almost always not interested in simply banning this practice in their own nation - but are adamant to prevent this practice from being supported in any other nation in the UN.
For example: corrupt governments might be interested in practicing genocide within their nation, but they are usually never trying to promote genocide to the other governments of the world. Democratic governments don't want to simply ban genocide within their own nation - they are very keen to see it prevented in every other nation on the face of this planet also!

The same goes for euthanasia.

This proposal gives euthanasia supporters what they want - the lawful ability to practice it in their nation. This proposal does the opposite for the opposition - allows supporters to practice euthanasia, which is a vile stench in the noses of opposers to euthanasia - very similar to what would happen in the case of genocide. Can you see how delicate this situation is? And how this proposal fails to balance the opinions out?

As rightful as I believe Logopia's intentions were - I do not regard this proposal as the be-all-and-end-all answer to the debates we face concerning euthanasia.
Flibbleites
04-09-2007, 04:22
You asked if there is a proposal already legalizing euthanasia, I didn't reply to that, but honorable representative from The Most Glorious Hack amde it clear that the answer no.

Uh, no, I was the one who said that, and the last time I checked I wasn't here in the UN representing The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites not The Federated Techocratic Oligarchy of The Most Glorious Hack.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: And I'm not a puppet of Hack either.
Gobbannium
04-09-2007, 05:04
We have a problem when proposals are put forward to bring ideals (that are best suited as ideals - or mos maiorum) to transform them into law. The ideal of - "what is good for me might not be good for you, and I will respect that" - is otherwise called the 'theory of relativsm'. There are no such 'laws' enforcing the theory of relativsm. One must ask, why is that?
One must not answer, apparently, lest one discover that one is incorrect. The NSUN has a number of such laws, which are collectively refered to as "blockers".

The recently repealed resolution: "Individual Self Determination" was based upon relativist principles also.
We utterly fail to understand how the ambassador can possibly have reached this conclusion. "Individual Self-Determination" was based solidly on the absolutist principle that an individual of sound mind and legal majority has the right to terminate their existence.

Can you understand how this sort of reasoning fails? We simply cannot logically allow BOTH beliefs to reign supreme, as that sort of reasoning is simply and utterly illogical.
The ambassador's reasoning is metaphysical flim-flammery, we fear. The argument is clearly not that both beliefs reign supreme, but that neither do. We accept that this rationale stands firmly opposed to the ambassador's own belief that euthanasia is under all circumstances an evil to be extirpated from the worlds; it is, however, irrelevant to the subject of drafting this legislation. If and when the proposal comes to vote, then we would expect to see the ambassador's full and clear explanation of why the proposal should be voted down; until that point, it is a distraction that does not incline us to take the ambassador seriously in future discussions. Might we suggest that those energies would be better served in drafting a proposal banning euthanasia, despite our personal devout hope that such a proposal would be doomed on the floor?

As rightful as I believe Logopia's intentions were - I do not regard this proposal as the be-all-and-end-all answer to the debates we face concerning euthanasia.
Given the existence of the repeal mechanism and the fractious nature of the United Nations at the best of times, we can safely say that no proposal is the be-all and end-all answer to any debates we face concerning any subject.

OOC: And I'm not a puppet of Hack either.
OOC: well, not a hand-puppet that Mme Vermithrax is operating, anyway :-)
The Narnian Council
04-09-2007, 05:44
The ambassador's reasoning is metaphysical flim-flammery, we fear. The argument is clearly not that both beliefs reign supreme, but that neither do.

Did it not occur to you that when two values 'reign supreme' - neither actually do? You have just validated my point quite well.

We accept that this rationale stands firmly opposed to the ambassador's own belief that euthanasia is under all circumstances an evil to be extirpated from the worlds.

Have I said that, honored ambassador - or are you taking the liberty to make assumptions?



It is, however, irrelevant to the subject of drafting this legislation. If and when the proposal comes to vote, then we would expect to see the ambassador's full and clear explanation of why the proposal should be voted down; until that point, it is a distraction that does not incline us to take the ambassador seriously in future discussions.

Mr. Ambassador, have you taken the time to read the entire discussion? If so, you should well know that it is my aim to see this proposal's weaknesses covered. Including what I see as imbalance. If you deem this discussion as a 'distraction' to you, I would suggest that you cease your arguments.

we can safely say that no proposal is the be-all and end-all answer to any debates we face concerning any subject

HOPING to reach an agreeable compromise that will end further futile debate

Did you care to overlook that worrying piece of information in the proposal, Mr. Ambassador of Gobbannium?

I respect Logopia. Unlike the method that other spokesmen might choose, I am not bothering to resort to personal attacks (as opposed to the actual improvement and discussion of the proposal). I understand that Logopia is well-informed in this matter, and I trust that they will take my opinion a little more seriously than you care to do.
The Most Glorious Hack
04-09-2007, 08:44
last time I checked I wasn't here in the UN representing The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites not The Federated Techocratic Oligarchy of The Most Glorious Hack.Keep collecting those pop-tops, and some day you just might be!



OOC: well, not a hand-puppet that Mme Vermithrax is operating, anyway :-)Hm. Technically, shouldn't it be Mme Pejorative?
Yelda
04-09-2007, 08:59
Keep collecting those pop-tops, and some day you just might be!
I collected nearly 10,000 of them and all I got was a Hack Action Figure™.
The Most Glorious Hack
04-09-2007, 09:04
Hey! Them's collectable, they are! Just check this eBay auction (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320152521480)!

No... seriously... I'm totally as cool as Snake Eyes...
The Narnian Council
04-09-2007, 11:33
OOC: Nice...I've got a spare $2,950 to go towards a little toy collectable...!

IC: Chancellor Luke J. Bonanno gives a stern look at his Most Glorious Hack while he sniggers over small talk with Yelda in that quiet back corner while the Euthanasia Convention reaches heated debate.

"Mr. Speaker! I would like to suggest that we eject certain uninterested members that are present here!............."
"Thank you Mr. Speaker!" (amidst a scuffle, shouts and a slamming door).
The Most Glorious Hack
04-09-2007, 12:50
Vermithrax raised her large head, grinning at the little gnomes trying to force her from the chamber. She smirked and blew out a small stream of flame, flash-roasting the little bastards. She glanced at Chancellor Bonanno, grinning with a trail of steam escaping her nostrils, "You were saying?"


Okay, okay; I'll quit hijacking, hee
Logopia
04-09-2007, 16:17
Mr Bob Flibble, I sincerly apologize for the confusion. I shall certainly be more careful in the future.

Getting back to the issue at hand.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Logopia, this is precisely the "having it both ways" approach that we object to. If euthanasia is "implicitly legal" as they claim, then what is the point of making it "explicitly legal" while at the same time affirming other nations' right to outlaw it?

The objective is to prevent any nation from attempting to force its point of view on nations who disagree.

What exactly are the esteemed representative's intentions here? To legalize euthanasia across the NSUN? If so, they should state as such. If it is merely to codify the status quo, then why bother bringing this up for debate in the first place?

I believe the three goals of this resolution are clearly stated enough; allowing euthanasia in nations who find it acceptable, allowing nations who find it unacceptable to ban it and setting a miminal standard that nations who allow it must respect.


Originally Posted by Logopia
HOPING to reach an agreeable compromise that will end further futile debate

Did you care to overlook that worrying piece of information in the proposal, Mr. Ambassador of Gobbannium?

I would kindly request the Narnian Ambassador to read post 24, the entire preamble to this proposal has been rewritten.

Your proposal FORCES others to respect relativsm! ...

Can you understand how this sort of reasoning fails? We simply cannot logically allow BOTH beliefs to reign supreme, as that sort of reasoning is simply and utterly illogical.

This proposal does force members to respect each other’s stance on the subject of euthanasia. There is nothing, however, that says that the standing of nations on every single subject is to be respected to its last consequences. That would be absurd, and equivalent to the end of the U.N.

I will not get on an argument about moral relativism or its merits in this forum. I believe it would do little good in advancing the drafting process. I will however attempt to explain why there is no logical contradiction in this proposal.

Indeed, if the proposal were attempting to do a worldwide ban and also to allow euthanasia then it would be self contradictory. The balance we seek is not one that gives both parties, for or and against, all that they want. The balance we seek is a compromise that all (or at least most) parties are willing to make. And we grant that this balance will not necesarily be the end of all debate.

Also, I'll clarify the stance at which both parties stand at...

Not to discount your opinion, but I doubt that it is entirely accurate. From the history of proposals and repeals on this issue and from what we’ve observed in these halls, we find it reasonable to believe that a number of nations opposed to euthanasia will be perfectly content with a resolution that simply guarantees their right to ban it. On the other hand, we find it reasonable to believe that a number of nations in favor of euthanasia indeed feel that it should be allowed for every individual. The standing of nations on this issue is a matter best left to the approval of the delegates and to the votes of the general assembly.
Gobbannium
05-09-2007, 04:04
Did it not occur to you that when two values 'reign supreme' - neither actually do? You have just validated my point quite well.
Not in the least, Chancellor. You were making claims about the nature of the argument being presented. We observed that those claims were incorrect, in that the opposed views being held to be equal does not lead to the conclusion that both reigned supreme, which undermined the validity of your subsequent deductions.


Have I said that, honored ambassador - or are you taking the liberty to make assumptions?
We made the assumption, sir, but based on examination of your presentation. If our deductions erred, we apologise; it is however generally our experience that those vigorously waving philosophical tractatus in the manner of a stage magician who "has nothing up his sleeves" are usually reaching for some form of pseudo-logical support for an emotional argument. We have no objection to emotional arguments per se, we merely prefer them to be more open about being such, and we count it no shame to challenge such apparent distraction techniques.

Mr. Ambassador, have you taken the time to read the entire discussion? If so, you should well know that it is my aim to see this proposal's weaknesses covered. Including what I see as imbalance. If you deem this discussion as a 'distraction' to you, I would suggest that you cease your arguments.
Contrariwise, we perceived an attempt to alter the fundamental nature of the proposal. The Logopian delegation wish to declare euthanasia to be an issue for nations to decide for themselves; you appear to regard this attitude as relativism and desire its removal, without appearing to understand that the proposal has no other purpose. Since there would appear to be no resolution to such contrary postures -- certainly none has actually been suggested in this chamber -- such an opinion is better served by either voting down such a blocking resolution or by drafting something yourself that more closely aligns with your nation's preferences.
Kivisto
05-09-2007, 15:02
To approach this from a bit of a different angle, this proposal draft is not really necessary in the slightest. There is already legislation in the UN law books that cover euthanasia.

Yes. I know. ISD has been repealed and no longer stands in the way of a convention of this nature. ISD is, obviously, not what I am referring to.

Euthanasia is being referred to as "a deliberate action or omission of action which results in the humane, painless and quick death".

It is rational to state that such things could easily be performed by trained medical professionals as a medical procedure or the suspension of medical care. As such, individuals are already guaranteed the right to medical euthanasia via UNR #159, Patient Rights Act, which states:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure...

(III) Patients may refuse treatment...

The decisions surrounding the medical procedure of euthanasia and the right to have it done lie with the patient. They are also guaranteed the right to refuse treatment if they wish. Any citizen of any UN nation can be euthanized under this if they wish, and the government cannot interfere.
Logopia
05-09-2007, 18:18
Honorable Ambassador from Kivisto

We thank you for bringing this point before us. We must admit (rather shamefully) that we failed to notice UNR#159 in our study of previous precedent relevant for this proposal.

Than being said, we still believe that this resolution has enough relevance to stand on its own.

Numeral I of UNR#159 talks about “medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options”. We believe these terms do not necessarily include actions that deliberately end the patient’s life. Regardless of the current trend in “the law means what the law says”. We maintain that there are ailments for which euthanasia cannot be reasonably considered a medical option. Likewise, we believe there are ailments for which it could reasonably be so considered. Clause 3 of “Euthanasia Convention” attempts to draw the line. I grant that this makes our proposal look as contradiction or an amendment to UNR#159. We believe it is neither, since it legislating on an issue that UNR#159 does not explicitly address and that does not necessarily implicitly addresses. Still we must admit that this has made us a little concerned about the legality of our proposal.

As for the right to refuse treatment stated in numeral III of UNR#159, we grant that that under the proposal's definition of euthanasia, clause 2 amounts to a contradiction (In granting nations the right not to allow it when it would result in the patient's death). Certainly fixing this will imply a major rewrite, and we will surely task ourselves to do it.

On a related note, we maintain that many of the proposal’s clauses set desirable minimal standards that apply to the right to refuse treatment. If this is legal, we will certainly keep including them in the next draft.

This proposal also has another important aspect, namely that it seeks to restrict euthanasia to a medical context (as per clauses 3, 7, 10). This is to prevent what we see as abuses that might be outside of the medical realm. If I may exemplify: people seeking assisted suicide to get out of debts, businesses freely offering euthanasia for a fee and the use of euthanasia as a solution to social problems.

Finally, there are a number of other issues this resolution tries to address and that are not covered by previous resolutions; such as the right of medical personnel to refuse to participate in euthanasia procedures (clause 11), that a decision for euthanasia should be done freely and with due consideration (clauses 4 and 9), and the psychological and emotional consequences of a euthanasia procedure (clause 13).

Just to reiterate, if UNR#159 effectively places the right to decide for medical euthanasia solely at the discretion of the patient; then this proposal is not only unnecessary, but a contradiction and thus Illegal. I really hope a mod would share some light on the doubts of legality here expressed.
The Narnian Council
06-09-2007, 03:42
The Lord Chancellor's attendant places a sheet of paper on the Logopian Ambassador's desk:

http://www.ciari.org/recortes/un_cartoon2.jpg

~ Lord Chancellor Luke Bonanno of the Narnian Council
The Most Glorious Hack
06-09-2007, 08:04
I really hope a mod would share some light on the doubts of legality here expressed.I don't think Kiv was raising a legality challenge, just one of necessity. In a way, I agree with him: I don't think this is especially necessary, but I don't think it's a contradiction.

From what I remember of your draft, the only time a patient doesn't decide is if they're mentally incompetent (either developmentally or due to age). Also, you're placing guidelines. I think it's a fine line, but that you're on the correct side of it. You might want to add a reference to the previous Resolution though; lip service, as it were.

If Tex or Ard would like to comment, though; I'd love to hear their opinions.
Logopia
10-09-2007, 19:44
Honored Ambassadors

I present the latest draft of our euthanasia proposal. It has been rewritten as to not contradict patients right to refuse treatment established in UNR#159

Comments are always appreciated.

----

Convention on Medical Euthanasia
Category Human Rights
Strength Mild

The United Nations

Aware that the right to medical euthanasia is a profoundly divisive and intensely debated subject,

Understanding the different values that result in the diversity of opinions on these matter,

Recognizing patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, as established by Resolution 159:

Believing that deciding if medical euthanasia is to be permitted or not lies within the rightful domain of individual nations,

Concerned about the potential for abuse that the legalization of medical euthanasia implies, and desiring to minimize it,

1-DEFINES medical euthanasia as the legally consented termination of a patient’s life by means different from the simple discontinuation or non application of medical treatment.

2-ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit the practice of medical euthanasia, but in no way requires or encourages them to do so.

3-REQUIRES that in any form of medical euthanasia, the following conditions must be met:

a-Any and all measures necessary must be taken to ensure that death occurs in a manner that is humane and as fast acting and painless as possible

b- With the exception of legal guardians deciding for patients in a permanent vegetative state; no one has the right to request euthanasia for another.

c- The request and consent for euthanasia shall be considered valid only when made voluntarily, explicitly, under no coercion, fully understanding the decision and its consequences, and aware of the nature, chances of recovery, expected quality of life or any other relevant aspects of the illness affecting the individual.

d- In the case of minors being able to request euthanasia for themselves, it may only be performed under both the request of the minor and the consent of the minor’s guardians.

e-Any and all euthanasia procedures must be performed and supervised by qualified medical personnel.

4- FURTHER REQUIRES that the practice of medical euthanasia is to be allowed only on individuals suffering from chronic or terminal medical conditions that significantly or irreparably compromise their quality of life.

5- DECLARES that nations choosing to allow medical euthanasia may set any other restriction to its application as they see fit.

6- DECLARES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for the termination of his own life shall be considered as a criminal offense and punishable as attempted murder

7-STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations who choose to allow medical euthanasia to grant medical personnel the legal right to refuse to participate in any such procedure.

8-ENCOURAGES medical institutions in nations who choose to legalize euthanasia, to provide counseling and psychological support for the patients, guardians and families of patients when a decision for euthanasia is to be made.

----
The Narnian Council
11-09-2007, 01:59
Impressive - well-written.

The last paragraph of the preamble is certainly an improvement on the original.

Clause 1 does well to simplifiy but expand on the original's definition.

We especially like the way that Clause 3 and its sub-points organize the structure of the proposal a little more clearly. However, the Narnian Council is concerned about point 3b. We believe that if someone has no ability to communicate (no say in the matter), it is wrongful to assume that this individual desires death.

We're pleased that the former and perhaps unnecessary Clause 12 has been dropped.

Very well done, Ambassador Iris Fairchild. However, as we have made clear previously, the Narnian Council will vote against this proposal.

~ Lord Chancellor Luke Bonanno of the Narnian Council
Logopia
11-09-2007, 06:21
However, the Narnian Council is concerned about point 3b. We believe that if someone has no ability to communicate (no say in the matter), it is wrongful to assume that this individual desires death.

Clause 3b does not assume that someone who cannot communicate wishes death. There is an enormous difference between inability to communicate and a permanent vegetative state. Inability to communicate is clearly not enough to declare a patient on a vegetative state, let a alone a permanent one. That being said, we grant that our choice of terms may not be clear enough. We will try to correct this.
St Edmundan Antarctic
11-09-2007, 10:21
Numeral I of UNR#159 talks about “medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options”. We believe these terms do not necessarily include actions that deliberately end the patient’s life.

This is also my government's interpretation of that clause: Given the lack of a definition for “medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options” within Resolution #159, we have adopted one that does not include any proceedures whose aim would be to end the lives of ensouled beings.
Logopia
20-09-2007, 23:59
Honored Ambassadors

We present the newest draft. We believe we have tackled all the major issues, such as "compatibility" with Rights of Patients without becoming a duplicate, a house of cards, or a contradiction. We hope to receive your valuable feedback
----
Medical Euthanasia Convention
Category Human Rights
Strength Mild

The United Nations

Aware that the right to euthanasia is an intensely debated and profoundly divisive subject,

Understanding the different views and values that result in the different opinions on this matter,

Believing that deciding if euthanasia is to be permitted or not lies within the rightful domain of individual nations,

Concerned about the potential for abuse that its legalization implies, and desiring to minimize it,

Recognizing patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, as established by applicable national and international laws:

1-DEFINES medical euthanasia as the legally consented termination of a patient’s life by means different than the discontinuation or non application of medical treatment.

2-ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit medical euthanasia, but in no way requires or encourages them to do so.

3-RESOLVES that the consented termination of a patient’s life cannot be considered legal unless the following conditions are met:

a-Any and all measures necessary must be taken to ensure that death occurs in a manner that is humane and as fast acting and painless as possible.

b- With the exception of legal guardians deciding for patients diagnosed with irreversible comma or otherwise permanent vegetative state, consent must be given by the patient himself.

c- Consent shall be considered valid only when made voluntarily, explicitly, under no coercion, fully understanding the decision and its consequences, and aware of the nature, chances of recovery, expected quality of life or any other relevant aspects of the illness affecting the individual.

d- In the case of minors being able to so decide, the request of the minor and the consent of the minor’s guardians are required.

e- Any and all procedures resulting or related to the termination of a patient’s life must be supervised by qualified medical personnel.

4- FURTHER RESOLVES that medical euthanasia is to be allowed only on individuals suffering from chronic or terminal medical conditions that significantly or irreparably compromise their quality of life.

5- DECLARES that nations choosing to allow medical euthanasia may set any other restriction to its application as they see fit.

6- MANDATES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for the termination of his own life is to be considered as a criminal offense and punishable, at least, as attempted murder.

7-STRONGLY ENCOURAGES nations who choose to allow euthanasia to grant medical personnel the legal right to refuse to participate in any such procedure.

8-ENCOURAGES medical institutions in nations who choose to legalize euthanasia, to provide counseling and psychological support for the patients, guardians and families of patients when a decision for euthanasia is to be made.
Placidosis
21-09-2007, 02:24
With respect to the members whose time and effort have gone into this draft, and to all those who took time to comment, the Free State of Placidosis maintains the following:

When we die, no one dies for us. Therefore, no one shall decide how we live, even at the hour of our incapacity. We claim rights over the time and method of our passing, to the extent that we have such power, or are able to assign it.

If we decide an anonymous friend shall assist, nothing printed anywhere by anyone has any right to say us nay, save they agree to suffer the pain of death along with us, as proof of their moral grandeur.
Gobbannium
21-09-2007, 03:14
b- With the exception of legal guardians deciding for patients diagnosed with irreversible coma or otherwise in a permanent vegetative state, consent must be given by the patient himself.
We have emboldened some small spelling and grammatical corrections.

c- Consent shall be considered valid only when made voluntarily, explicitly, under no coercion, fully understanding the decision and its consequences, and aware of the nature, chances of recovery, expected quality of life or any other relevant aspects of the illness affecting the individual.
In combination with (b), we find this clause quite problematic. It would appear that it impossible for many mentally ill people to receive medical euthanasia under these rules, even if their quality of life were being severely degraded by some unrelated illness. Their consent is not considered valid under this clause because they do not fully understand the consequences of such a decision as a consequence of their mental impairment, and under (b) their legal guardian or guardians cannot make or verify the decision in their stead.

d- In the case of minors being able to so decide, the request of the minor and the consent of the minor’s guardians are required.
Whilst we appreciate and support the sentiment of protection of children expressed here, much the same problem as we outlined above exists with regard to children too young to fully (or indeed in some cases even partially) comprehend the consequences of their decisions.

4- FURTHER RESOLVES that medical euthanasia is to be allowed only on individuals suffering from chronic or terminal medical conditions that significantly or irreparably compromise their quality of life.
We have serious philosophical issues with this clause, not the least being how far it strays into the anti-euthanasia camp. While we do council against suidicide, assisted or not, as a solution to most problems, we are unwilling to dictate what anyone may or may not do with their own life when such decisions do not affect the well-being of others. We would therefore not be able to accept this clause as it does require us to do precisely that.

6- MANDATES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for the termination of his own life is to be considered as a criminal offense and punishable, at least, as attempted murder.
We have some reservations on this clause also, but can live with a suitable definition of 'coercion' if that is not considered too ironic.

Much of the rest of the resolution we would support, particularly the encouragements to provide counselling services through the process of reaching a decision to undergo medical euthanasia. We personally would go further than merely urging such, since we consider support services to be a vital part of the health and wellbeing of all concerned in any medical situation, never mind one which many consider to be a test of morals and ethics.
Tanular
21-09-2007, 03:38
We of Tanular agree with the people of Gobbannium on point four. This point is too far into the moral grounds of the anti-euthanasia camp to be supported by us, and we believe that such should be up to the individual nations to decide.

We also understand the objection to point six. If a clarification were added to reasonably define coercion, we would withdraw this objection as well. We recommend something along the lines of: Coercion is defined as any action taken by medical, hospital, military, governmental, or other agent, which does more than provide a simple explanation of those items as laid out in section three, subsection c.

On the issue of those not qualifiying under 2-b, -c, such as the mentally ill and young minors, Tanular feels that perhaps it is best that they not be eligible for euthanasia. Otherwise, a provision on how to handle this seperatlely should be added.

If these three issues are addressed, we belive that Tanular would support this resolution to prevent wanton murder in the name of 'freedom of choice.'
Gaffa Territories
21-09-2007, 09:31
I know this might be controversial, but why do we have to go straight into euthanasia? Why can't we start off by mandating palliative care? In the current situation as soon as someone is declared terminally ill a nation can decide just to stop all treatment as it is a waste of resources.
Logopia
21-09-2007, 17:42
...It would appear that it impossible for many mentally ill people to receive medical euthanasia under these rules, even if their quality of life were being severely degraded by some unrelated illness. Their consent is not considered valid under this clause because they do not fully understand the consequences of such a decision as a consequence of their mental impairment, and under (b) their legal guardian or guardians cannot make or verify the decision in their stead.
...
Whilst we appreciate and support the sentiment of protection of children expressed here, much the same problem as we outlined above exists with regard to children too young to fully (or indeed in some cases even partially) comprehend the consequences of their decisions.

And certainly the effects you mention is something we deem desirable. As we see it, the subject of euthanizing mentally ill patients or children who cannot state a desire to die is simply too delicate and thorny to allow it. We are so concerned about potential for abuse, that we prefer to err on the side of being too restrictive in this matter. That being said, know that we do not discount the Gobbannium ( ese? ) postion. We will try to set less restrictive conditions in a future draft and leave more room for local legislation.

On a different note, we agree on the convenience of providing a definition for coercion. We shall include one in the following draft.

As for the objections to clause four, we understand your concerns, and be assured that they have been noted. We still need to give this issue more thought before being able to give a sensible remark.
Goobergunchia
21-09-2007, 21:39
Goobergunchia would oppose this primarily due to clause 2:

2-ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit the practice of medical euthanasia, but in no way requires or encourages them to do so.

If the United Nations, at some point in the future, wanted to legalize euthanasia throughout its member nations, a repeal of this resolution would be required. This would be kind of annoying if the UN wished to legalize euthanasia across all member nations, but only with the restrictions in this proposal. "Repeal and Replace" is annoying, and it's better if it becomes unnecessary. :)

However....

Believing that deciding if euthanasia is to be permitted or not lies within the rightful domain of individual nations,

Since in our view blocker clauses are unneeded due to the "AGAINST" option, I probably have a difference of opinion with the proposal author on this subject and don't really expect this to be changed in the final draft of the proposal. Which is a shame, because if everyone listened to me, the world would be a better place.

Darren Funkel
Acting Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region
TheCraigzone
21-09-2007, 22:36
i kill all who get in my way!
Gobbannium
22-09-2007, 01:08
I know this might be controversial, but why do we have to go straight into euthanasia? Why can't we start off by mandating palliative care? In the current situation as soon as someone is declared terminally ill a nation can decide just to stop all treatment as it is a waste of resources.
We would offer the suggestion to the honoured ambassador that the two issues he is considering are somewhat more disjoint notions than might at first appear. One is, after all, a matter of the rights of individuals to determine the nature of their own life and death, while the other concerns the duties of the state to care for the health of its citizens. Further, while the UN's resolutions concerning the provision of the most basic levels of health care remain frankly risible, forcing potentially expensive care packages upon those who may have no desire for them would be quite literally adding insult to injury.
Logopia
24-09-2007, 22:40
Honored Ambassadors

We have reviewed your comments, and we would like to present you some proposed changes.

1)Since we do not believe the UN should encourage euthanasia, and not even appear to do so, the following clause will be added right after the preamble.

- URGES member nations to facilitate access to the highest possible quality of life for their terminally or chronically ill patients

2)Clause 3b (the one talking about patients in irreversible comma) will be removed, in it's place we will have.

- Consent for the termination of an individual life must be given by the individual himself; or when permitted by national laws, and complying with all other provisions of this resolution, by legal guardians on behalf of minors or otherwise legally incapable patients.

While our original intent was to set a much more restrictive position, we recognize that this issue can be effectively handled by individual nations.

3)Clause 6 (about coercion) will now say

MANDATES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for the termination of his own life is to be considered as a criminal offense and punishable, at least, as attempted murder. For the purposes of this resolution, coercion shall be defined as any action that uses physical, emotional, psychological, social, or economic pressure as a means to induce an individual into making a particular decision.

4) The definition of euthanasia will be changed as to make it the "... consented and assisted termination ...". We believe this is necessary to make the distinction from suicide clear and apparent.
---

As for the objections raised to clause 4 (the one establishing when to allow euthanasia), we will leave it as it is. While we see very little chance of reaching an agreement on this issue, we will nonetheless attempt to explain the Logopian position.

We agree in that individuals have the right to decide what to do with their own life, including ending it; as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. However, we also believe that allowing euthanasia with that sole restriction would allow several undesirable situations that the state has a duty to prevent, even at the expense of that particular individual right.

Some of the scenarios we are more concerned are the following:
-Individuals seeking euthanasia to escape criminal sentencing or judicial proceedings
-Euthanasia as a means to escape debt or other economic or social pressures
-The emergence of euthanasia as a business, including the advertising, and marketing of death.
-Individuals suffering from undiagnosed clinical depression or other similar psychological disorders seeking euthanasia, and dying when effective treatment might be available.

We grant that we could enact legislation tackling these particular issues, and any others that might present themselves. We however believe that the effort required to do so is not worth it.

On a more philosophical note, we also believe that it is morally incorrect for a government to allow euthanasia solely at the discretion of the individual. This supports the notion that there is no intrinsic value in human (sapient) life. Or rather that the value of every individual human life is only that which it’s holder gives it. We do not wish to go into metaphysical or theological discussion. Suffice it to say that we hold the belief that there is at least some intrinsic value in human life, and that the state must not do anything that goes against this notion; quite the contrary, we maintain the state should, whenever possible, promote respect, if not admiration, for human life.

In conclusion, we believe allowing euthanasia with the sole condition that it does not harm any other individual is unacceptable; since we firmly believe it would harm society as a whole.

We do not expect to change your position on this matter; we however believe it is only fair that we explain why we can’t change clause 4 of our proposal.
CrimsonTyde
02-10-2007, 03:02
I am opposed due to the fact this is not a UN issue but rather a issue for individual nations. Seems to me like we could spend our time on more pressing issues that effects the global community. Rather than promoting a issue that a individual nation is going to either support or not support.
Aquaea
03-10-2007, 00:03
I am opposed due to the fact this is not a UN issue but rather a issue for individual nations. Seems to me like we could spend our time on more pressing issues that effects the global community. Rather than promoting a issue that a individual nation is going to either support or not support.

This resolution states that
2-ASSERTS the right of individual nations to permit assisted suicide or any other such form of euthanasia, but in no way requires or encourages them to do so.
6-FURTHER DECLARES that nations choosing to allow euthanasia may set any other restriction to its application as they see fit.
We of the Free Lands of Aquaea understand this draft to indicate that the resolution does not require a nation to commit euthanasia, but causes UN member nations to permit euthanasia, given consent of those involved.
Logopia
03-10-2007, 05:53
Exactly, this proposal would effectively block future UN resolutions from either banning or forcing nations to allow euthanasia. It would give individual nations broad liberties to handle the issue as it best fits them

-------------------------------------------------

On a completely different note, I kindly request my honored colleagues to please post future comments in the submission thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539690), it includes the latest version