NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Ambassadors

The Logopian Government has submitted the following proposal for delegate approval.

The draft discussion can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537075)
The submission is here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=euthanasia)

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

2- DEFINES euthanasia as the legally consented and assisted termination of an individual’s life by means different than the discontinuation or non application of medical treatment.

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

4- RESOLVES that 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- FURTHER RESOLVES that the consented termination of an individual’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 as humane, dignified, fast acting, and painless as possible.

b- Consent 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 persons.

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 condition affecting the individual.

d- When consent is given by legal guardians, judicial proceedings must be followed to ensure the decision is made for the individual’s best interest.

e- In the case of legally incapable persons who are still reasonably capable of deciding, both their request and the consent of their guardians are required.

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

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

7- MANDATES that coercing or attempting to coerce an individual into making a decision for euthanasia 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.

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

9-URGES 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.

I notice that your provided definition of euthanasia does not encompass the termination of incapacitated or unconscious patients who cannot give consent, and thereby your resolution avoids that issue entirely, neither condoning nor condemning. If that was your intention, then congratulations on a finely crafted proposal.

In the clause immediately preceding Article I, I believe patients' would be more grammatically accurate than patient's. In Article II I would change different to other, but that's just a preference for smooth wording (the article works as is).

Mirah Leinenkugel
Assistant Ambassador to the United Nations
Twafflonia

We thank ambassador Leinenkugel for the valuable comments. We'll try to clarify.

The definition of euthanasia stated in clause 1 only says "legally consented... " it does not say that it must be consented by the same individual who would be euthanized. Clause 5.b specifies who can give consent; namely the individual himself or "legal guardians on behalf of minors or otherwise legally incapable persons..." The proposal in fact allows euthanasia for legally incapable persons, as long as
It is requested by the legal guardians
It is in the person's best interest (guaranteed by judicial proceedings)
It is allowed by national law
It complies with all other aspects of the proposal
It is not against the expressed wishes of the individual

On a differente note... unfortunately t is now too late to correct or improve the grammar in this proposal. Your comments however are thanked and we will have them in mind in the future.

First off, your link to the draft thread doesn't work; this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537075) is the actual location. Second, you already have a thread for this topic; standard forum etiquette is that you continue to use that one until your proposal comes to vote.

My nation will not support this legislation.

Thank your for pointing out the broken link, it has been fixed.

I was not aware about the convention of using the same thread until the resolution was at vote. I could be mistaken, but I'm almost sure there isn't anything to that effect in the rules, and that there have been other discussions moving to a new thread when the proposal is submitted. Nevertheless, I acknowledge I should have been more careful when starting a new thread.

I offer a sincere apology for this lack of care, and pledge not to repeat it in the future.

I do have to ask if your not supporting this proposal comes from your grievances with my post or from disagreement with the proposal itself. If it is for the later, I hope you will at least give me a chance to defend my position.

No need to apologize; it's not a big deal. If a mod wants to merge this topic, s/he will. It's not very difficult.

Urgh. This could go either way, really.

How is this Human Rights? This reads very much like a Moral Decency resolution to me. It restricts existing rights, it doesn't protect them at all.

How does this restrict?

How does this restrict?It's all about limiting the conditions under which a nation can allow euthanasia, without protecting the right to euthanasia of the individual.

As such, Rubina will not be approving the proposal.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Second, you already have a thread for this topic; standard forum etiquette is that you continue to use that one until your proposal comes to vote.


This is not correct. It's been a fairly common practice for proposal authors to open a new thread when the proposal is submitted. It helps call the proposal to the attention of those who might want to add an approval and allows members to quickly and easily examine the submitted draft. We think it's a good idea and recommend it.

The representative of Logopia committed no breach of etiquette.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It's all about limiting the conditions under which a nation can allow euthanasia, without protecting the right to euthanasia of the individual.

As such, Rubina will not be approving the proposal.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Perhaps the author of the proposal would argue that protecting individuals from non-consensual euthanasia, along with guaranteeing certain conditions under which it is acceptable, is a human rights issue, and I can see the underlying logic.

How does this restrict?Er, because nothing in the entire proposal protects the right to euthanasia? (Have you read it yet?) It gives sovereign nations the choice - and where nations do allow euthanasia rights, the proposal places additional restrictions on the application of these rights, even declares a criminal penalty. I misspoke before, because this is actually the kind of evil proposal the Federal Republic could get behind. It's like Abortion Legality Convention, in hyper mode.

It's just in the wrong category.

Perhaps the author of the proposal would argue that protecting individuals from non-consensual euthanasia, along with guaranteeing certain conditions under which it is acceptable, is a human rights issue, and I can see the underlying logic.And war is peace; freedom is slavery; and ignorance is strength. Or one could argue so.

I misspoke before, because this is actually the kind of evil proposal the Federal Republic could get behind. It's like Abortion Legality ConventionWe were wondering about you there for a minute. ;)

--L.T.

Perhaps the author of the proposal would argue that protecting individuals from non-consensual euthanasia, along with guaranteeing certain conditions under which it is acceptable, is a human rights issue

That is precisely what we would argue. We are happy to see that the proposal has at least some success in conveying the logic behind it.

We have to grant that this proposal would indeed restrict what is currently unrestricted. We believe however that when euthanasia is permitted it must be strictly regulated as to prevent abuse. It is quite reasonable to believe that persons facing a condition that makes them consider euthanasia are in a very vulnerable position. It is our firm conviction that the state has the duty to protect its more vulnerable nationals. Therefore we believe that if euthanasia is to be allowed, the state must make sure that all aspects of and around it are carried out as decently and humanely as possible. This is one of the things this proposal tries to achieve.

To sum up, allow me to examine the effects if this proposal were to pass
Euthanasia would remain illegal where it is so.
It could remain as it is in countries where it is legal and more restricted than required by this proposal.
It would force nations that allow it under less restrictive conditions to stop doing so. We believe that this would be for the better.
As per clauses 1 and 9, hopefully care would improve for terminal and chronic patients.
As per clause 8, medical practitioners could not be forced to participate in euthanasia procedures.

We have to maintain that the area of effect is human rights.

On a different note, we also have to grant that this proposal, in giving individual nations the right to legalize euthanasia or not, effectively denies euthanasia as a fundamental human right. We propose to give this right to individual nations for more practical than ideological reasons. From the history of resolutions on this topic, we have come to believe that a resolution attempting to make euthanasia legal in every nation has but a small chance of staying in the books for long. In particular, Logopia is not against euthanasia, and it is in fact allowed in our nation. Nevertheless, we understand the moral arguments against it. This proposal, in clause 3, attempts to reach an agreeable compromise.

It's all about limiting the conditions under which a nation can allow euthanasia, without protecting the right to euthanasia of the individual.

As such, Rubina will not be approving the proposal.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

It leaves that right up to the individual country itself.
I think it sounds good in its own right. Naturally, the Federation does not allow euthanasia, but respects the fact that others do. This proposal serves to make guidelines for countries who decide to condone euthanasia.

Hector, Prince Infante de Genosha

Er, because nothing in the entire proposal protects the right to euthanasia? (Have you read it yet?) It gives sovereign nations the choice - and where nations do allow euthanasia rights, the proposal places additional restrictions on the application of these rights, even declares a criminal penalty. I misspoke before, because this is actually the kind of evil proposal the Federal Republic could get behind. It's like Abortion Legality Convention, in hyper mode.

It's just in the wrong category.

I've read it, and as I replied to Ambassador Talone, it only sets guidelines for countries to follow, should they allow euthanasia.

But I can see, perhaps it is in the wrong category.

Hector, Prince Infante de Genosha

This proposal is indeed well thought out, and the care which Ambassador Fairchild has taken to make it so is to be lauded. However, this strikes me as unnecessary fine tuning for a legal topic which has already been relegated to the several nations by the repeal of Legalize Euthanasia.

I see no need for UN refinement of a subject that is not currently under UN control.

I do look forward to seeing future proposals from you, Ambassador.

As such delicate and controversial matters should be decided by each individual nation individually, The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm supports the basic ideas of the resolution. However, we do not see the need of introducing a resolution which actually does not introduce anything, as its key messge is: "Each nation can do whatever they decide upon". Therefore we claim the resolution not to be necessery at the time being.

The Lord of The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm

I'd like to thank the honored Ambassador from Intangelon for the kind comments. Be sure that the Logopian UN mission will continue to actively participate in this great institution, and that we will continiously strive to do so in a better way each time.

As for this particular proposal, I’d like to give two arguments, if not for the strict necessity, at least for the convenience and benefits of this proposal.

It is quite true that the issue of deciding if euthanasia is to be legal or not is already a domestic issue. As so, this proposal could seem superfluous. However, it is important to remember that this proposal would have the effect of blocking future resolutions from trying to impose a worldwide policy on this issue, be it either a worldwide ban or forcing all nations to allow euthanasia. If you believe that deciding if euthanasia is to be legal or not should be left to national governments, then I must urge to support this proposal. Its passing would certainly have that effect.

The proposal also does more than simply declaring euthanasia a domestic matter. It also sets a minimum set of standards for its legalization. I grant that it is reasonable to believe that nations who allow euthanasia already have safeguards and regulations that effectively protect the patient’s best interest, yet we cannot be certain. It is our conviction that when allowing euthanasia, governments have the duty to place said safeguards and regulations. This proposal would ensure that this happens. I have to admit that this argument does not hold if you don’t believe that there should be restrictions, or that the ones set in this proposal are not the right ones, but that is a different discussion.

If you believe that deciding if euthanasia is to be legal or not should be left to national governments, then I must urge to support this proposal. Its passing would certainly have that effect.


As the representant of my duchy I now have to agree with the Logopian perspective. It does seem that accepting the discussed proposal might not only stop any ultra resolutions, whichevr way they would lead us, but also weaken the lately claimed theses of some ambasadors that the UN empose and interfere too much in their nations' internal affairs.
Thus we would strongly desire to thank our Logopian friends for the above remark.

The Lord of The Grand Duchy of Elven Realm

I'd like to thank the honored Ambassador from Intangelon for the kind comments. Be sure that the Logopian UN mission will continue to actively participate in this great institution, and that we will continiously strive to do so in a better way each time.

As for this particular proposal, I’d like to give two arguments, if not for the strict necessity, at least for the convenience and benefits of this proposal.

It is quite true that the issue of deciding if euthanasia is to be legal or not is already a domestic issue. As so, this proposal could seem superfluous. However, it is important to remember that this proposal would have the effect of blocking future resolutions from trying to impose a worldwide policy on this issue, be it either a worldwide ban or forcing all nations to allow euthanasia. If you believe that deciding if euthanasia is to be legal or not should be left to national governments, then I must urge to support this proposal. Its passing would certainly have that effect.

The proposal also does more than simply declaring euthanasia a domestic matter. It also sets a minimum set of standards for its legalization. I grant that it is reasonable to believe that nations who allow euthanasia already have safeguards and regulations that effectively protect the patient’s best interest, yet we cannot be certain. It is our conviction that when allowing euthanasia, governments have the duty to place said safeguards and regulations. This proposal would ensure that this happens. I have to admit that this argument does not hold if you don’t believe that there should be restrictions, or that the ones set in this proposal are not the right ones, but that is a different discussion.

It is indeed, Ambassador Fairchild. However, you've swayed me with the your blocker argument. Were it just a blocker, I would support it. But this proposal seeks to block and regulate, and I am against micromanagement from the UN on a topic which is nationally decided. I apologize, but I must agree only to partially agree on your eloquent pair of points.

The proposal also does more than simply declaring euthanasia a domestic matter. It also sets a minimum set of standards for its legalization.
Our problem with this proposal, as we have previously stated, is that we flatly disagree that the standards the Logopian delegation mandates are either appropriate or desirable. The net result, as we see it, is a supposedly neutral blocking proposal that in fact bends sufficiently far in the direction of appeasing the anti-euthanasia vote as to positively invite proctological examination.

I had already posted this in the draft thread, however since many fellow ambassador might miss my previous post, I´ll take the liberty to repeat myself

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.

<ooc>

...bends sufficiently far in the direction of appeasing the anti-euthanasia vote as to positively invite proctological examination

How do you come up with these things? I'm gonna be laughing about it all day.

</occ>

On a different but related note, I'd much appreciate if you'd care to elaborate on what exactly you find objectionable in the standards we propose. I recall your disagreement to the clause about allowing euthanasia only for terminal or chronic patients. If you have other objections, I hope you'll further explain, so I will in turn have the chance to elaborate on the Logopian position.

The net result, as we see it, is a supposedly neutral blocking proposal that in fact bends sufficiently far in the direction of appeasing the anti-euthanasia vote as to positively invite proctological examination.

OOC: As I am sure you are aware, but we should perhaps re-state for the benefit of any newcomers, the very rules of the game actually make it impossible to create an absolutely neutral proposal on such a subject and actually require any proposal to bend sufficiently in one direction or the other to justify its category...

OOC: As I am sure you are aware, but we should perhaps re-state for the benefit of any newcomers, the very rules of the game actually make it impossible to create an absolutely neutral proposal on such a subject and actually require any proposal to bend sufficiently in one direction or the other to justify its category...True as far as that goes. However, this proposal goes far beyond what would be required to move it from neutral blocker to legal proposal, and does so in the direction, as the author's own explanation makes absolutely clear, of moral decency. Unfortunately, the proposal has been filed as human rights and is nothing of the sort.

I can understand the logic behind seeing this proposal as belonging in moral decency instead of human rights. In fact I agree that it would have been at least reasonable to submit it under that category. Indeed the reasons for which we propose to have euthanasia so regulated come from moral decency principles. Yet I have to argue that the effects of this proposal would be more about protecting individual rights. It would protect, patients’ right to decide without any pressure, legal guardian’s right to decide for incapable persons, and patient’s right to have an effectively humane death when they decide to die. To a lesser extent it would also protect the right of medical practitioners to refuse to participate in euthanasia procedures, and it would promote the right of terminal and chronic patients to adequate care.

We admit that clause 4 (“RESOLVES that euthanasia is to be allowed only on individuals… “), and probably 5.f (“Any and all procedures resulting or related to…”) do restrict the right to euthanasia. However, we maintain that the benefits outlined above suffice to consider this proposal as human rights.

<ooc>

How do you come up with these things? I'm gonna be laughing about it all day.

</occ>

OOC: I swallowed a dictionary at an early age :-) Seriously, it's fairly easy. Just think of something mildly provocative to say, then keep rephrasing it in bigger words until it isn't insulting any more.

On a different but related note, I'd much appreciate if you'd care to elaborate on what exactly you find objectionable in the standards we propose. I recall your disagreement to the clause about allowing euthanasia only for terminal or chronic patients. If you have other objections, I hope you'll further explain, so I will in turn have the chance to elaborate on the Logopian position.

Clause 4 is indeed our sticking point; we are glad to see that our previous objections to the excessively odious treatment of minors and the mentally ill in clause 5 have been dealt with. In essence, we do not believe that this is a reasonable blanket restriction bearing in mind the broad spectrum of opinions on the subject in our own lands, never mind across the UN.

We conducted a brief poll of our own religious advisors concerning this, which somewhat predictable produced widely varying results. The Roman Catholic Archibishop of Gobbannium was immovable in regarding euthanasia as a form of suicide or murder, both of which are sins, while the Great Druid was equally obdurate in his opinion that under Strict Druidism, death is a part of life and must be accorded the same respect that any other living choice deserves. Other responses were less helpful; the Chuch of Gobbannium were very understanding, while we are not at all certain that the response from the Neo-druidical representative was assisted by being given during a period of assisted meditation.

Given this spread of opinion, and the general tenor of the rest of the resolution in avoiding absolute restrictions in favour of requiring appropriate safeguards instead, we cannot accept clause 4. It is, flatly, a restriction of the right to die applied globally, and it firmly moves the entire proposal into the Moral Decency camp.

-Individuals seeking euthanasia to escape criminal sentencing or judicial proceedings.


This is no different from someone completing suicide in the face of the same punishments. However, with euthanasia, there's no mess, no shock of discovering the decedant, and the nation is saved the expense of a trial and imprisonment/execution. I'm looking for a problem in all of that, Ambassador Fairchild, but I can't seem to find it.

Unless, of course, you want to dig into religious, moral or spiritual issues, which you're already on record as not wishing to do (wise, I might add, given how well such approaches are regarded with respect to NSUN legislation).

-Euthanasia as a means to escape debt or other economic or social pressures


Given that debt or ostracization are commonly less arduous to endure than torture or execution, I can see how some might object to euthanasia as a means out of debt or scandal. Also, it wouldn't be necessarily fair to leave behind a debt to relatives (should debt be heritable as it is in many nations). However, I still see euthanasia as preferable to suicide in situations such as these, and would hesitate to regulate the practice based on this objection.

That being the case, perhaps the laws regarding debt heritability and privacy might be more appropriate targets for reform and/or regulation?


-The emergence of euthanasia as a business, including the advertising, and marketing of death.


I am no staunch capitalist, but for many, the phrases "supply and demand" and "what the market will bear" are as sacrosanct as the holiest consecration. Therefore, if there is a demand, someone will supply it, even if it's the state. (What would a communist leader or dictator do to those who protest for euthanasia? Kill them?)

Let me also add that if funeral parlors, reverse mortgages, life insurance, and other death-related segments of the economic sphere are free to advertise (and do so with phrases like "what would your family do if you died?), what is the problem with marketing euthanasia? The other death industry services manage to market their wares tastefully (I can't imagine much of a client base for those who didn't). It follows that euthanasia could as well. Why must we coddle and continue to enable this paralyzing fear of death? Surely, frank discussion on the matter would help ease that fear somewhat.

I'm not here to cast aspersions on you or your society's take on economics, but free market lovers would probably see this third objection as groundless.

Individuals suffering from undiagnosed clinical depression or other similar psychological disorders seeking euthanasia, and dying when effective treatment might be available.


It is at this point that one of your four concerns hits the target. Once again, you've come to the crux of the matter and this is where your legislation should be focused. Perhaps a requirement that no euthanasia be carried out without a board of three certified psychiatrists determining beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no chemical imbalance, clinical depression or other medical or psychological pathology present in the subject.

In fact, I can help you with an idea for stricter regulation or even an attempt to ban euthanasia using this argument. It's feathery, but it might work.

Considering that no medical or psychological field currently has a complete understanding of all the workings of the human mind.... Considering the possibility that such an understanding might be impossible or at least countless millennia away.... Considering the psychological trauma to family and friends possible were a patient cleared for euthanasia only to have medical science break through with a new condition and treatment therefor -- and the person cleared suffered from the new condition (this determined through an autopsy) and could have been effectively treated or cured...and so forth.

Might that work?

Honorable Prince Rhodri Mawr

I thank the civil and well thought replies you have given the Logopian UN Mission. We understand your objections, yet it seems that we will not reach an agreement on this particular issue.

We see the limitation we are proposing as something truly desirable. We believe it would have a global positive impact. Clearly you disagree with our position. That being said, I accept your opposition as coming from a thorough and reasonable analysis of our porposal, something that isn't nearly as common as it should be in this institution.

I sincerely hope our disagreement will not damage future relations between our nations.

Minister Royce, allow me to try to address some of the fine points you make.

...and the nation is saved the expense of a trial and imprisonment/execution

It would also derprive the victims of a sense of closure and justice, something we see as important as punishment and rehabilitation in judicial proceedings.

However, I still see euthanasia as preferable to suicide in situations such as these

Indeed it would be preferable, from the point of view of the one dying. However, I'd argue that this wouldn't be the case for those who would have to face the responsibilities the dearly departed left behind. We don't believe making death easier as a means to escape the responsibilities of life is a fair thing that the state should do.

...for many, the phrases "supply and dedmand" and "what the market will bear" are as sacrosanct as the holiest consecration

And for many they aren't. And we strongly believe that the UN should not hold that notion. It is our conviction that markets should be as free as possible, but never with complete disregard for other values and aspects of society. The UN has indeed passed many resolutions that sacrifice some economic freedom in favor of gains in other areas. I grant that it hasn't been done in favor of decency, but still I maintain that it is not so far fetched.

... if funeral parlors, reverse mortgages, life insurance, and other death-related segments of the economic sphere are free to advertise (and do so with phrases like "what would your family do if you died?), what is the problem with marketing euthanasia?

The businesses you mention do not market and advertise death, but rather the means to make it more endurable for the ones left behind. We see a great difference between "What would your family do?" and "Why wait till your hip breaks? Do you really want to have arthritis? Come to the center for peaceful departure today!". Businisses and advertisers strive to make their product as desirable as possible. I sincerly doubt that making death a desirable product is healthy for a society.

Why must we coddle and continue to enable this paralyzing fear of death?

I agree, we musnt. But just as we should not fear death, it is our conviction that we must not promote it.

Once again, you've come to the crux of the matter and this is where your legislation should be focused.

Indeed this last concern could have been tackled separately. Unfortunately it is now to late to make any corrections. If I ever submit a new proposal for the regulation of euthanasia (I'm begining to doubt this one will reach quorum), your comments will surely be taken into account. Furthermore, we sincerely hope youd bring your valuable insight to the drafting process.

Ambassador Fairchild,

our shared love of reasoned debate ensures, we feel, that relations between our nations shall not be damaged by mere disagreement. We thank you for your courteous responses to all concerned, and we hope you will understand if we wish your endeavours well in general rather than specific at this time

Hm.

Euthanasia would remain illegal where it is so.
It could remain as it is in countries where it is legal and more restricted than required by this proposal.
It would force nations that allow it under less restrictive conditions to stop doing so. We believe that this would be for the better.
As per clauses 1 and 9, hopefully care would improve for terminal and chronic patients.
As per clause 8, medical practitioners could not be forced to participate in euthanasia procedures.
Okay... let's see here... for the Category debate, one and two are irrelevant. They don't push the Proposal in either direction, as they have no effect on the nations they relate to.

Point three restricts the nation, and, I suppose, the people that might somehow benefit from relaxed restrictions. This is a mild push towards MD.

As for point four, 1 and 9 are urging clauses, making them optional and weak. This is a very weak push towards HR.

Likewise, point eight is an optional clause. A strong optional clause, but still optional. Thus it is also a weak push towards HR.

This gives us two very weak and one weak towards HR and a mild towards MD. While the intent of the author may have been to write a very mild Human Rights bill, it seems that it was written so mildly that it toppled over into Moral Decency, especially when I look at the other clauses:
Clause 3: Moral Decency (part of point 3 above)
Clause 4: Moral Decency (likewise)
Clause 5: Moral Decency (as above, again)
Clause 6: Rather neutral, but leans vaguely towards Moral Decency
Clause 7: Could possibly go either way; it increases the rights of individuals (insofar as it protects them from nasty-mean doctors), but it restricts said doctors (and family members, etc.), and also restricts the nations themselves (can't coerce citizens into offing themselves "for the betterment of society"). Still, it feels like Moral Decency.
As a Moderator, this whole Proposal seems to be weighted more towards Moral Decency than Human Rights. I'm still willing to entertain reasoned (but, for the love of God, be succinct) counter-arguments, though.

Ill try to make my case for the category as briefly as posible


clause 1: very weak HR
clause 2: nill
clause 3: I would contend that since it changes nothing it really doesn't push the proposal either way.
clause 4: definitely MD. Here I'd like to note that this is only true if we grant that individuals truly have the right to die. I believe it is a right, albeit one that should be restricted on behalf of moral decency. Still someone of different views could come along and argue that there is not such thing as a right to die (probably on theological or metaphysical grounds).
clause 5: This is where I believe is the core of our disagreement. This clause is all about protecting the rights of patients who desire euthanasia. As so I see it definitely, and rather strongly as a push to HR
5a and 5f: Protect the right to effectively die humanely
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e: Make sure the decision to die is truly a personal decision. Or when it is not possible that it is personal, at least that it is in the person's best interest. Please note that 5d even goes as far as requiring judicial proceedings to ensure this goal.
clause 6: Mild MD. It allows for more restrictions
clause 7: Id contend that it really is HR, even if mildly. It supports the same objective as 5b,c,d,e. It goes far enough as to define a crime and mandate how to punish it. It protects individual rights. It not only protects against abuse from evil doctors or despotic governments, but from anyone who could have an interest in the patients death.
cluase 8: very weak HR
clause 9: very weak HR


The way I see it it is: two nill (2,3), one relatively strong but possibly disputable MD (4), one relatively strong HR (5), one mild MD (6), one mild HR(7), and thre weak HR (1,8,9). Of course I believe this tips the balance sufficiently in favor of HR.

Yeah, proposals aren't balance sheets. It's actually very simple to determine which category a proposal follows under, and it goes something like this: "This proposal will restrict the rights of people to die with dignity."

And there you have it, Moral Decency.

Clauses five and seven seem to be the ones up in the air, and the strongest of the contested clauses. I think it rather depends on if one focuses more on the state (and the practitioners) or the individual desiring death. They grant freedoms to individuals, but restricts the state and the practitioners.

But, the Cubs just lost, so I'm in no mood for legal wrangling. Let me think about this a little. It's on the fence enough that I'm not sure the category is a catastrophic issue. Other opinions (from Mods, too) are, of course, still welcome.

Euthanasia Convention is no longer on the list of proposals.

Does this mean it has been found illegal and deleted?

Appears it just ran out of time.

Ahhh, I thought It'd stay there for the rest of the day...

Well, Euthanasia Convention has failed to reach quorum.

Las time I checked It had 90 approvals. I'd like to thank all those delegates who supported the late proposal and all those who participated in this debate and in the drafting process.

Umm. You do know that you're allowed to submit it again (and again, and again... The current record for eventually-successful persistence is somewhere around 12 or 15 submissions!), don't you?

Maybe you could try it as 'Moral Decency', but with nothing else changed, next?

It would also derprive the victims of a sense of closure and justice, something we see as important as punishment and rehabilitation in judicial proceedings.

I am not certain that closure for all victims requires seeing the state execute the perpetrator of the crime. In the case of lethal injection, as it is practiced in Intangelon, it's effectively euthanasia at the direction of the state. You do raise a valid concern, however.

Indeed it would be preferable, from the point of view of the one dying. However, I'd argue that this wouldn't be the case for those who would have to face the responsibilities the dearly departed left behind. We don't believe making death easier as a means to escape the responsibilities of life is a fair thing that the state should do.

I reverse myself on this point, as you've made an irrefutable (in my eyes) argument.

And for many they aren't. And we strongly believe that the UN should not hold that notion. It is our conviction that markets should be as free as possible, but never with complete disregard for other values and aspects of society. The UN has indeed passed many resolutions that sacrifice some economic freedom in favor of gains in other areas. I grant that it hasn't been done in favor of decency, but still I maintain that it is not so far fetched.

Not far fetched, but still unprecedented, and I would not like to see what lurks behind the door that a first decency related exception would open.

The businesses you mention do not market and advertise death, but rather the means to make it more endurable for the ones left behind. We see a great difference between "What would your family do?" and "Why wait till your hip breaks? Do you really want to have arthritis? Come to the center for peaceful departure today!". Businisses and advertisers strive to make their product as desirable as possible. I sincerly doubt that making death a desirable product is healthy for a society.

I believe that it could be marketed in a way that does not make death desirable. Instead of "why wait for your hip to break", and the like, what about "end-stage Alzheimers is a daily tragedy for those close to you..." or "inoperable parietal lobe tumors tend to continue to grow and shut off parts of the brain until you are left psychotic, insane or persistently vegetative -- why do that to your loved ones?"

It isn't necessary to "market death", but rather, as you've mentioned above, consider the effect of end-stage illnesses and syndromes on the patient and their families and friends.

I agree, we musnt. But just as we should not fear death, it is our conviction that we must not promote it.

Again, it's a matter of looking at alternatives to lingering in pain (or other unpleasnt states) and the suffering that causes both victim and loved ones.

Indeed this last concern could have been tackled separately. Unfortunately it is now to late to make any corrections. If I ever submit a new proposal for the regulation of euthanasia (I'm begining to doubt this one will reach quorum), your comments will surely be taken into account. Furthermore, we sincerely hope youd bring your valuable insight to the drafting process.

I voted to approve your bill before it was removed from the Proposals Queue. It was a narrow approval, but one your efforts deserved. I hope you will resubmit this worthy idea with a slight reworking given your worthy talents.

We would vehemently oppose any proposal that sought to force nations to adopt a laissez-faire approach to euthanasia; this is not a 'right', I feel, that merits a cavalier sweeping aside of national and cultural sovereignty. Equally, we vehemently oppose any attempt to restrict a nation's ability to take a liberal approach to the matter. This is such a proposal (and does, for me, qualify as 'Moral Decency'), and thus I must declare my fervent opposition.

Benedictions,

Well I will most likely redraft and resubmit some time in the future. The comments made here have certainly provided plenty and valuable food for thought. I once again thank everyone who has contributed.

Ill leave this subject rest for a while, but I'll most likely have some completely different draft on an entirely different subject some time next week. Stay tunned!

We would vehemently oppose any proposal that sought to force nations to adopt a laissez-faire approach to euthanasia; this is not a 'right', I feel, that merits a cavalier sweeping aside of national and cultural sovereignty. Equally, we vehemently oppose any attempt to restrict a nation's ability to take a liberal approach to the matter. This is such a proposal (and does, for me, qualify as 'Moral Decency'), and thus I must declare my fervent opposition.

No law passed on the topic has ever asserted euthanasia as a "right". Rather, they've sought to block its being made criminal or regulate it where it is legal. You needn't raise the nationalist alarms on this one. Any law making euthanasia a "right" would be met with opposition enough to reject it, including my own.

Incidentally, a thorough perusal of the transcripts of this forum would show you that your ferverted opposition is not needed.

Incidentally, you have walked a very interesting tightrope with your declaration, Minister Gao. You oppose euthanasia as a "right", yet also oppose restricting it where it is legal. Where, exactly, does that really put you?