NationStates Jolt Archive

Thanks to The Cat-Tribe for the new layout of the proposal. I have used it as a template now; so here we go.


The World Assembly hereby declares:

1. In accordance with the provisions below, all World Assembly nations must allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.

2. The following words and phrases as used in this resolution have the following meanings:
a. “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months
b. “Attending physician” means the health care provider who has primary responsibility for the care of the patient and treatment of the patient’s terminal disease
c. “Consulting physician” means a health care provider who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient’s disease.
d. “Adult” means people who in their Nation have reached the age of majority.

3. The individual seeking death must:
a. be an adult;
b. be suffering from a terminal illness;
c. be mentally competent and have the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers; however if it is deemed that they have sufficient mental faculties to wish for an assisted death they are to be treated as a normal person
d. make two oral requests not less than fifteen days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;
e. and have executed a written request for such medication in the presence of two witnesses who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and is not being coerced to sign the request. One of the witnesses shall be neither a relative of the patient nor a person who stands to benefit from the death of the patient.

4. Before prescribing lethal medication, the patient’s attending physician must:
a. confirm the patient’s diagnosis of terminal illness;
b. determine that the patient is mentally competent and that the request for lethal medication is voluntary;
c. inform the patient on at least three different occasions of the diagnoses, the patient’s prognosis, the risk of lethal medication, the results of ingesting lethal medication, the availability of feasible alternatives to taking the lethal medication, and the patient’s right to rescind the request for lethal medications;
d. refer the patient to a consulting physician to confirm the patient’s terminal diagnosis, the patient’s mental competence, and the voluntary nature of the decision;
e. refer the patient for counselling if either the attending or consulting physician believes that the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric disorder or other condition causing impaired judgment;
f. and verify immediately prior to writing the prescription for the lethal medication that the patient is making an informed and voluntary decision.

5. Additional provisions:
a. A patient may rescind the patient’s request for lethal medication at any time and in any manner without regard to the patient’s mental state. However; when numerous requests are made and then rescinded an immediate psychiatric consultation is to be ordered.
b. No person shall be subject to any penalty, including civil or criminal liability or professional discipline for participating in good faith compliance with this resolution.
c. A person that wilfully seeks to cause a patient’s death without full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties.
d. This Act is to ensure a dignified end to suffering; and is not meant to be used as an excuse for the removal of undesirable people in the respective Nation.
e. A physician is within their rights to refuse an assisted death WITHOUT any penalties being levied against them by the patient or family members and/or friends of the patient.

6. Having created a right to die with dignity in accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution where none previously existed, this resolution respects, leaving unchanged, those laws and ethics regarding the right to die with dignity, Suicide and Euthanasia which member states may have already put in place to legalise these things.

We call it a "suicide clinic"?

How elegant....

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/notagain.jpg

We call it a "suicide clinic"?

How elegant....

I suppose it beats one of these.
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/suicide-booth.jpg

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Let our own governments decide these issues not delegates in the WA. Euthanasia is not a right in my country, I'll leave that to your people just don't get me involved.

I actually think this exactly the kind of issue that needs discussion in the WA. Whilst it may not be right in your country where do you stand on your citizens travelling to another country to acheive this goal.

A WA would help acheive at least some sort of clarity on a very difficult subject matter.

As for the act itself :

1, Who determines and at what point does a disease fall into the catagory as one that a person can terminate there life

2, what of those not of sound state of mind. Would a power of attorney be able to make that decision ?

4, would it only be legal at specific clinics/hospitals

3, the word suicide shoud be replaced, assisted death or something less harsh for an act of this nature

Good points kinkster.

1. A fully qualified doctor, surgeon, specialist, etc. in the appropiate field would be responsible for telling the person time left before death. The border into euthansaia would come if the quality of life would deteriorate rapidly into pain and/or loss of dignity.

2. Those who are not of sound mind who have, before losing their mental faculties, previously expressed a wish to die before losing dignity would be able to have a Pwer of Attorney.

3. You are quite right; it should be referred to as assisted death.

4. Fully licenced hospitals and clinics would be built if required. However, many WA nations would have a central hospital in the country to go to. Those WA nations that have outlawed assisted death would be required not to prosecute any person who assists in the death of a terminally ill person.

Honorable Ambassador, I agree with the basic aspect with death with dignity, and it is a consensus within my nation that it should be regarded as an essential human right.

However, dangers arise when extrapolating the concept worldwide: What safeguards are in place for this act to not be considered a free pass for the genocidal elimination of (what many nations would consider) "undesirables"? Homosexual people, elderly people, special needs people, communists, capitalists, and so on? Many nations could find a loophole to declare such and many more other classes "terminally ill".

I could support such a draft when such a concern is most throughly addressed.

Honorable Ambassador, I agree with the basic aspect with death with dignity, and it is a consensus within my nation that it should be regarded as an essential human right.

However, dangers arise when extrapolating the concept worldwide: What safeguards are in place for this act to not be considered a free pass for the genocidal elimination of (what many nations would consider) "undesirables"? Homosexual people, elderly people, special needs people, communists, capitalists, and so on? Many nations could find a loophole to declare such and many more other classes "terminally ill".

I could support such a draft when such a concern is most throughly addressed.

I am in favor of Euthanasia, but as the esteemed delegate has point out there are no safeguards in place, also this needs to be a real, well-thought through proposal due to the gravity of the issue here at hand. It needs to be more in-depth and comprehensive. That will come hopefully in this process.

Until then I wont be able to get behind supporting this one. Also does anyone have a thought to call these "suicide clinic" something other than that? I would imagine that name gives Negative connotations and will drive off future supporters.

All good points raised. Thanks. I am currently working on providing a more detailed proposal which hopefully addresses the concerns raised here.

(OOC: I'd also point you to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml). It passed a ballot in RL and survived a repeal ballot. Click the link.)

I generally agree with Hawkins, but I think it must be more precise, because it's a very delicate matter.

(OOC: I'd also point you to the . It passed a ballot in RL and survived a repeal ballot. Click the link.)

Thanks for the link. I will read through it and get some pointers for my proposal.

Still think WA should not intervene. I am not against your countries performing Euthanasia and if any citizen of my country wishes to use this practice in your country, I will allow it under certain restrictions.
I am also concerned with genocide. A Hitler in this day might use this act as a "cleansing project" for his undesirables. I want to protect my citizens at all cost against those wishing them harm and I think this legislation may due more harm than any possible good.

Still think WA should not intervene. I am not against your countries performing Euthanasia and if any citizen of my country wishes to use this practice in your country, I will allow it under certain restrictions.
I am also concerned with genocide. A Hitler in this day might use this act as a "cleansing project" for his undesirables. I want to protect my citizens at all cost against those wishing them harm and I think this legislation may due more harm than any possible good.

This is why I will be doing a new, more detailed proposal in due course. Assisted death is not intended to aid dictators become genocidal maniacs.

With regards to the proposal; do I put the re-draft into my original post?

OOC: yes, that's one of the common ways to update your draft. That way we all know where to find it, rather than searching backwards through the thread. A post to say that you've updated and a quick overview of the changes is also a very good idea, otherwise people will miss it.

Updated Proposal in Post #1 of thread.

Your current version is Illegal because of a RL Reference --->"Oregon"

Your current version is Illegal because of a RL Reference --->"Oregon"

the original proposal has come this far without the need for plagerism. better to use the orogen state legislation as reference not whole.

*Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted. Also, while it's acceptable to use real world laws and UN resolutions as a starting point, don't plagiarize.

^^^he can't mention Oregon as it doesnt exist here.

OOC: yes, that's one of the common ways to update your draft. That way we all know where to find it, rather than searching backwards through the thread. A post to say that you've updated and a quick overview of the changes is also a very good idea, otherwise people will miss it.Plus it eliminates the problem of people complaining about problems that were already fixed but they didn't know because they read an old version.

^^^he can't mention Oregon as it doesnt exist here.

Really, I think the inhabitants of Oregon (http://www.nationstates.net/region=oregon) would be surprised to hear that they don't exist.

Even with the changes, it is my opinion that the World Assembly is not the proper venue to decide euthanasia, or assisted suicide legislation. It is a hot-button issue for many different reasons unique to each nation. In Glen-Rhodes, legislation has been repeatedly struck down based on existing ethical guidelines in medicine, but there are also moral and religious beliefs to take in to account. Would this practice not be denying religious states their right to self-determination? I am no opponent of the proliferation of democracy nor the disregarding of religious beliefs, but this is an international congress that is blind of ideologies, not a unilateral democratic freeway. We must take in to account what many deem the central creed of their religion: the value of life.

Therefore, I am opposed to this resolution not simply because I cannot fit assisted suicide in to my ethical beliefs, but because the issue so complex and dependent on the unique circumstances of each nation, and as such should not be legislated on the international level.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

We'll remain opposed, the citizens of our territories kill for sport and don't like it when people willingly accept death. It's just not very sportsman like.

WYMP

Assisted Suicide is legal in the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench, and has been so for some time, but this did not come to pass over night, it took at least two centuries of complicated legal and political wrangling to develop an approach to this issue which is subtle enough and ethical enough to satisfy our people.

We would not however, and for that very reason, support legalising euthanasia throughout the w.a. and certainly not under the provisions of this statute. Indeed we would find it difficult to see how, considering the constraints on length, any resolution could properly deal with this issue.


Yours,

We would like to see a provision protecting the right of physicians to not participate in an assisted suicide operation.

Even so, we will probably still oppose this legislation in light of national sovereignty concerns. This is a sensitive issue and the ability to end one's life a few months early is not, in our opinion, a fundamental enough right to warrant overriding local customs. We are not at all convinced of the "wrongness" of those customs; in fact, we ourselves have many concerns about the wisdom of euthanasia.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

I move to amend the draft by striking "citizens who are aged 18 years of age and over" and replacing it with "citizens who have reached the age of majority within their nation" in the preamble.

We would like to see a provision protecting the right of physicians to not participate in an assisted suicide operation.

Agreed.

I do apologise for including Oregon. I had the text there as a reference and forgot to take the Oregon part out. With regards to the ponts needing clarification; I will try to address it.

Really, I think the inhabitants of Oregon (http://www.nationstates.net/region=oregon) would be surprised to hear that they don't exist.


Then I suppose we'll be lifting the RL Reference Ban on things like France, England, et al. simply because they're also the names of regions?

I agree that this proposal is inconsistent with a strict interpretation of national sovereignty. Although the Emperor and the Empire allow any citizen of sound mind to commit suicide at any time, regardless of crippling sickness, as an inherent corollary to the right to life, Insula Nivea does not support legislating this issue through the World Assembly. It is a matter for the several nations to decide.

Then I suppose we'll be lifting the RL Reference Ban on things like France, England, et al. simply because they're also the names of regions?But then those proposals would be illegal under the ban on 'branding'... ;)

I move to amend the draft by striking "citizens who are aged 18 years of age and over" and replacing it with "citizens who have reached the age of majority within their nation" in the preamble.
Amazingly, we find ourselves concurring, albeit in a limited manner. As a nation which does not subscribe to the concept of a singular "age of majority", and indeed deploys the term in our national law solely to meet the specifications of WA legislation, we would suggest that the "appropriate age of majority" might be more useful.

While euthanasia is legal in the Democratic Republic of Gabelstag, I don't think that the WA should force other nations to legalize something so. . Morally ambigious. Many nations haven't legalized it and I don't believe that it's our place to force it upon them.

This proposal stigmatizes the mentally ill, patronizingly treating them as men and women who are in no place to make decisions about their own lives. We must fundamentally acknowledge that mentally ill people, like anyone else, possess a right to self-determination, and there is no significant difference between mental and physical illness.

There is no legitimate reason why a severely depressed individual, after having made recourse to a whole variety of therapies with only failure after failure, should not have access to a comfortable death in order to relieve suffering. Many mentally ill people are forced to take this into their own hands, oftentimes failing with disastrous results such as permanent disability or an extremely painful death.

Our goal should be to expand options, not impose discriminatory policies. For this reason, too, we must explicitly reject the clause restricting access to euthanasia to those individuals who have attained majority. Children are among the most vulnerable among us, and to relieve their suffering in cases where no treatment is sufficient is a moral good. The proposed policy will grant terminally ill patients who have attained majority a clean, comfortable end, while forcing children to suffer to the very end stages of their condition, or perhaps to languish on until the age of majority is reached. We also reject the notion that this decision must be made by the individual in question; a provision must be made for infants born with conditions that, in the judgment of health care professionals, are of such pain and discomfort that death is preferable.

Euthanasia is strongly prohibitted in my nation and it is indeen illegal, having euthanasia in my nation will be seen as allowing the medical system to go down the road, we shouldn't just give up on those that are ill but fight to cure all kinds of diseases it doesnt matter how much the cost would be to research and fund programs for discovering new cures for new diseases which are discovered almost everysingle day.

Respected Serbian Soviet ambassador, as a fellow nation founded on the worker's struggle, we of the Workers' Republic of Balawaristan feel a genuine fraternal affection towards your people, and we extend to you the full measure of our warmth and our desire to stand in solidarity in the advancement of international communism.

We do not disagree with any hostility, but we think you are mistaken here. We realize that in lesser nations the profit-motive may result in a preference for euthanasia at the expense of medical research to improve the lives of the ill. And every necessary step should be taken to avoid this; it is paramount that universal access to quality medical care be declared an inviolable, fundamental, absolute right and that investment into medical research be imposed as a mandatory expenditure. But those matters are too expansive for inclusion in this proposal---we must address one matter at a time.

But the contradiction you present is not a necessary one. Even in the best imaginable system, there are still people for whom treatment is hopeless, or are so miserable that death is preferable. Many of these people, even now, resort to suicide by crude means, such as overdosing on sleeping pills and alcohol, gunshots, and hanging. We do not propose euthanasia as an alternative to comprehensive medical care, but as a humane, essential component of it.

We ask you with all sincerity to consider our argument, and we eagerly await your response.

Workers of the world unite!

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador, The Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

The Ambassador of the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union considers your argument and has taken a lighter stance towards Euthanasia and therefore we will not be arguing against the proposal however we will accept this proposal if it is put to voting and we will consider Euthanasia only as a last resort if everything else fails inorder to save the ills and if they are in their last stage of cancer before death and no medications or such can save the person, we would recommend Euthanasia rather then the ill asking another person to kill him or her or for the person itself to commit suicide in anyway listed above in your argument.

We will continue with our medical research in finding better treatments for the ill and even go as far as researching for cures for diseases which currently there is no cure for, euthanasia however will be legal but monitored very strictly on when and how euthanasia will be used and for who may receive it.

Signed,

Zvonko Bulic
The Ambassador

Thanks everyone for the replies and suggestions. I am hoping to have a new draft up soon; however bit short of time.

The language of this Resolution does not guarantee the citizen's "due process" in the right to die. The country's medical development could hinder the outcome of the individual's decision. There are countries in the WA that are on the leading trend in the medical area, while there are under-preforming counties that are in the stone ages. This Resolution is taking away the rights of citizens in these under-developed nations while taking away "due process".

Secondly, the WA recognizes each and every countries sovereignty and independence. This Resolution will contradict such actions in WA laws. Such decisions for each country should be taken by the individual country.

I can't believe I'm hearing people say that suicide is a political freedom. Under Glen-Rhodes law, failed suicide is indeed a felony. Although you are not imprisoned, you do lose your constitutional right to vote, among several state-based privileges such as having a drivers license or being able to buy or consume alcohol. Successful suicides bar the departed from carrying any awards, such as military and civil titles.

As stated earlier, assisted suicide is against the ethical codes of the Glen-Rhodes medical society. There are reasons why we spend so much money on health-care, and among them is researching cures for the very diseases that cause people to contemplate suicide. Legalizing euthanasia would decrease the number of willing test subjects, which means a decreased chance in being able to find cures.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Under Glen-Rhodes law, failed suicide is indeed a felony. Although you are not imprisoned, you do lose your constitutional right to vote, among several state-based privileges such as having a drivers license or being able to buy or consume alcohol. Successful suicides bar the departed from carrying any awards, such as military and civil titles.

I am shocked and appalled at such a sheer display of bigotry. Let me see if I got this straight. If a soldier comes from war after killing dozens of fathers for the (often vain) glory of a nation, he get accolades, medals, military parades. If he kills himself, he becomes shit. Some display of morality and compassion.

There are reasons why we spend so much money on health-care, and among them is researching cures for the very diseases that cause people to contemplate suicide. Legalizing euthanasia would decrease the number of willing test subjects, which means a decreased chance in being able to find cures.

This is specious and devoid of any logic whatsoever. Of course you, we, and everybody else research cures for diseases. However, euthanasia presents us with a unique challenge. What to do when two fundamental sapient concerns, Life and Dignity, clash with each other?

We, in The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus, have decided that Life with Dignity should be pursued until the very moment Dignity ceases to be possible. Then, Dignity is chosen. Have Your Honor ever been at an Intensive Care Unit? Have you ever seen anyone dying, alone and isolated from family, filled with tubes? I have. Our legislation allows every eligible patient to summon the family at the bedside at a time of her/his choosing, allowing last words and sentiments to be expressed. And allowing in many instances, closure, for issues long unspoken.

A final act is only allowed after counseling, treatment with the most advanced treatment protocols for pain and depression, my personal Royal Consent, and a personal visit from myself to the patient so as to express my personal sorrow and solidarity to him/her and his/her family. Among numerous other details.

Numerous studies in our Empire only confirmed the obvious. When presented with a choice between hope and death, hope will always be preferred. The argument that euthanasia will lead to lessened ability to find cures is absurd. Euthanasia is only applicable to those beyond any hope. Needless to say it is a very stringent legislation.

Imposing moral and societal opprobium to suicide only increases the likelyhood of if being underreported or misreported, so as to allow burial in sacred grounds, among other things. And insofar suicide remains a taboo, the likelyhood of it occurring only increases.

On a final note, is such a revolting treatment of the honor of people who have committed suicide or tried to commit suicide even legal under the Charter of Civil Rights? If there's a loophole, I'll happily spearhead a resolution to end that barbaric practice.

Yours truly,

I am shocked and appalled at such a sheer display of bigotry. Let me see if I got this straight. If a soldier comes from war after killing dozens of fathers for the (often vain) glory of a nation, he get accolades, medals, military parades. If he kills himself, he becomes shit. Some display of morality and compassion.One might question the morals and compassion of a person who commits suicide, or asks a doctor to it for him, leaving behind their problems for their mourning family to fix, such as debt; not to mention the high cost of a proper funeral. Your use of overly emotional language is interesting, though, given my education in propaganda. No matter what emotions you attach to subject, the fact is that these laws have been on the books for centuries, and there's no doubt people in Glen-Rhodes have just as strong emotions for our way of doing things as you have for yours. Again, I bring up the point that euthanasia legislation depends on the unique circumstances of each society, and should therefore not be legislated on an international level.

What to do when two fundamental sapient concerns, Life and Dignity, clash with each other?
If you consider both to be fundamental concerns, perhaps there's reason to connect them to medical research. I personally find no dignity in taking your own life, or taking another's at their request.

Numerous studies in our Empire only confirmed the obvious. When presented with a choice between hope and death, hope will always be preferred. The argument that euthanasia will lead to lessened ability to find cures is absurd. Euthanasia is only applicable to those beyond any hope. Needless to say it is a very stringent legislation.While the very name of the Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus leads me to question the scientific validity of these 'numerous studies', I have to point out the obvious here. One is not 'beyond any hope' if they are participating in a medical studies to cure whatever ailment has led to their suicidal tendancies. Furthermore, the argument I set forth in my last address hold its own. It's a very simple mathematical problem, you see. If the number of patients willing to participate in a medical study decreases because they are killing themselves left and right, then the number of available subjects for a medical study also decreases. Because there are less subjects willing to participate in a medical study, there are less experiments able to be held, which means that the probability of success decreases. This is not a matter of hope, faith, or whatever invisible force you believe affects us, Your Majesty. It is a matter of science.

Imposing moral and societal opprobium to suicide only increases the likelyhood of if being underreported or misreported, so as to allow burial in sacred grounds, among other things. And insofar suicide remains a taboo, the likelyhood of it occurring only increases.It sounds like Your Majesty should be looking in to the ethics of Your Majesty's coroners, if the falsification of death certificates or reports is a serious concern. I'm unsure how to respond to your other claim, because I'm unsure if you are seriously saying that because suicide is a taboo, more people will want to do it.

On a final note, is such a revolting treatment of the honor of people who have committed suicide or tried to commit suicide even legal under the Charter of Civil Rights? If there's a loophole, I'll happily spearhead a resolution to end that barbaric practice.Now this is ludicrous claim. The Character of Civil Rights protects inhabitants, not grave occupants. If you would like me to contact Attorney General Theodore Marcello, the head of the Glen-Rhodes Justice Agency, and have him explain the legality of the law, I would be more than willing to.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Then I suppose we'll be lifting the RL Reference Ban on things like France, England, et al. simply because they're also the names of regions?

Or you could wise up and realize that I was merely making a joke.

Again, I bring up the point that euthanasia legislation depends on the unique circumstances of each society,

Agreed.

and should therefore not be legislated on an international level.

Minimum standards should be held.

I personally find no dignity in taking your own life, or taking another's at their request.

I'd be the last person to deny you freedom of thought.

While the very name of the Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus leads me to question the scientific validity of these 'numerous studies',

Ad hominem. A fallacy, how cute. What about arguments?

One is not 'beyond any hope' if they are participating in a medical studies to cure whatever ailment has led to their suicidal tendancies.

I agree. Where did I say it was not so? Euthanasia is forbidden in such scenarios of medical studies, insofar they constitute hope.

It is a matter of science.

Undoubtly.

It sounds like Your Majesty should be looking in to the ethics of Your Majesty's coroners, if the falsification of death certificates or reports is a serious concern.

Come on, you know I was not talking about my own Empire.

I'm unsure how to respond to your other claim, because I'm unsure if you are seriously saying that because suicide is a taboo, more people will want to do it.

If you can be unsure about such a thing, I am sure I cannot make you sure about it.

Now this is ludicrous claim. The Character of Civil Rights protects inhabitants, not grave occupants. If you would like me to contact Attorney General Theodore Marcello, the head of the Glen-Rhodes Justice Agency, and have him explain the legality of the law, I would be more than willing to.

No need, thank you. Your Honor just spelt it quite clear you are using the silence in the law to commit such a barbarism against the memory of the deceased.

And, about the living, the survivors of suicide attempts:

Under Glen-Rhodes law, failed suicide is indeed a felony. Although you are not imprisoned, you do lose your constitutional right to vote, among several state-based privileges such as having a drivers license or being able to buy or consume alcohol.

Well...

The Charter of Civil Rights

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

Yours truly,

I like the current draft and am anxious to see the next update. While the two esteemed delegations debate semantics and thoughts on Urgench's Civil Rights Charter, I recognize Glen-Rhodes' objection that it isnt a WA issue, but why is it such a crime in your country if they fail? Succeed? Bias like that needs to be ended.

Gov'ts place is not to legislate morality but to make and fashion laws to effectively govern and take care of their subjects. We will support any draft of this bill if and when it gets presented.

Simply put we all would, if given the chance, get to choose how and when we go out.

Minimum standards should be held.

Then legislate on your own, Your Majesty. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with trying to save a person's life, unless you muddle the entire thing with religious doctrines, which have no place in science anyways.

Ad hominem. A fallacy, how cute. What about arguments?I direct to you circumstantial ad hominem, in which your religious views, whatever they may be, are the circumstances upon which I base my argument.

No need, thank you. Your Honor just spelt it quite clear you are using the silence in the law to commit such a barbarism against the memory of the deceased.Glen-Rhodes is using the absence of international law to create completely legal, valid, and legitimate laws? Where is the problem, again, Your Majesty? As for your claims on suicide survivors, I guess you could call them, I've spoken with the Attorney General.

The law does not violate the Charter of Civil Rights because the charter only dictates that persons must be equally treated under national and international law, not that all persons must be treated equally period. The suicide law does not discriminate in who it affects. Indeed, anybody who attempts and fails to commit suicide is punished for their actions.

There seems to be confusion about what "equal treatment under the law" means, Your Majesty. The interpretation of the Charter that you are suggesting would mean that Glen-Rhodes would not be able to forcefully put the mentally ill in to psychiatric hospitals if they pose a threat to themselves or the community. Indeed, the Charter means that Glen-Rhodes cannot have a law that only puts Rhodesians in psychiatric hospitals if they pose a threat to themselves or the community.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

When did this Euthanasia bill start involving the deceased? Aint it hard to kill what is already dead? Am I missing the boat even though Ive read all the posts thus far?

For those who support this law, then offer up some constructive thoughts to help better the draft and further its cause. Arguing semantics of an already passed law isnt advancing anything.

Then legislate on your own, Your Majesty. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with trying to save a person's life, unless you muddle the entire thing with religious doctrines, which have no place in science anyways.

I direct to you circumstantial ad hominem, in which your religious views, whatever they may be, are the circumstances upon which I base my argument.

Glen-Rhodes is using the absence of international law to create completely legal, valid, and legitimate laws? Where is the problem, again, Your Majesty? As for your claims on suicide survivors, I guess you could call them, I've spoken with the Attorney General.

The law does not violate the Charter of Civil Rights because the charter only dictates that persons must be equally treated under national and international law, not that all persons must be treated equally period. The suicide law does not discriminate in who it affects. Indeed, anybody who attempts and fails to commit suicide is punished for their actions.

There seems to be confusion about what "equal treatment under the law" means, Your Majesty. The interpretation of the Charter that you are suggesting would mean that Glen-Rhodes would not be able to forcefully put the mentally ill in to psychiatric hospitals if they pose a threat to themselves or the community. Indeed, the Charter means that Glen-Rhodes cannot have a law that only puts Rhodesians in psychiatric hospitals if they pose a threat to themselves or the community.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Well, I'm glad we are able to disagree respectfully.

Believe me, Hon. Dr. Castro, I am not some deathist. I just happen to believe a good lived life merits a good departure. Or as the Esteemed Studly Penguins' Ambassador put it: we all would, if given the chance, get to choose how and when we go out.

I acknowledge such a morality is not suitable for everyone.

Where is the problem? That is the point. There is no problem. Then again, it is my personal opinion, I cannot legislate on your country's related matters, and international law is silent about it. So it is.

I so am not a deathist that I authored the soon-to-be-voted "Access to Life-Saving Drugs". I hope we can find common ground on that one. I hope I can count on your support.

I'll reserve my silence about any other topics raised (in this topic), now and from now on, Esteemed Dr. Castro and Esteemed Studly Penguins. I'm sorry if my intervention was impertinent.

Yours truly,

Well, I'm glad we are able to disagree respectfully.

Believe me, Hon. Dr. Castro, I am not some deathist. I just happen to believe a good lived life merits a good departure. Or as the Esteemed Studly Penguins' Ambassador put it: we all would, if given the chance, get to choose how and when we go out.

I acknowledge such a morality is not suitable for everyone.

Where is the problem? That is the point. There is no problem. Then again, it is my personal opinion, I cannot legislate on your country's related matters, and international law is silent about it. So it is.

I so am not a deathist that I authored the soon-to-be-voted "Access to Life-Saving Drugs". I hope we can find common ground on that one. I hope I can count on your support.

I'll reserve my silence about any other topics raised (in this topic), now and from now on, Esteemed Dr. Castro and Esteemed Studly Penguins. I'm sorry if my intervention was impertinent.

Yours truly,

Not at all, I made my thoughts and opinions known b/c it seemed it was turning off course and becoming a debate of semantics, Charter of Civil Rights, and not the merits/Pros & Cons of the bill at the center of debate.

As you have stated, it is nice to be able to agree to disagree respectfully. Please keep adding your input to this debate as I hope the Glen-Rhodes Delegation will as well.

Is there a new draft of this bill to view yet?

For what it is worth, I am not entirely convinced the WA should legislate this matter (although the arguments in this thread against such legislation serve as some of the best reasons for such legislation). Nonetheless, I suggest the following language may help improve the proposed resolution:

The World Assembly hereby declares:

1. In accordance with the provisions below, all World Assembly nations must allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.

2. The following words and phrases as used in this resolution have the following meanings:
a. “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months
b. “Attending physician” means the health care provider who has primary responsibility for the care of the patient and treatment of the patient’s terminal disease
c. “Consulting physician” means a health care provider who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis regarding the patient’s disease.
3. The individual seeking death must:
a. be an adult;
b. be suffering from a terminal illness;
c. be mentally competent and have the ability to make and communicate health care decisions to health care providers;
d. make two oral requests not less than fifteen days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;
e. and have executed a written request for such medication in the presence of two witnesses who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, acting voluntarily, and is not being coerced to sign the request. One of the witnesses shall be neither a relative of the patient nor a person who stands to benefit from the death of the patient.

4. Before prescribing lethal medication, the patient’s attending physician must:
a. confirm the patient’s diagnosis of terminal illness;
b. determine that the patient is mentally competent and that the request for lethal medication is voluntary;
c. inform the patient on at least three different occasions of the diagnoses, the patient’s prognosis, the risk of lethal medication, the results of ingesting lethal medication, the availability of feasible alternatives to taking the lethal medication, and the patient’s right to rescind the request for lethal medications;
d. refer the patient to a consulting physician to confirm the patient’s terminal diagnosis, the patient’s mental competence, and the voluntary nature of the decision;
e. refer the patient for counseling if either the attending or consulting physician believes that the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric disorder or other condition causing impaired judgment;
f. and verify immediately prior to writing the prescription for the lethal medication that the patient is making an informed and voluntary decision.

5. Additional provisions:
a. A patient may rescind the patient’s request for lethal medication at any time and in any manner without regard to the patient’s mental state.
b. No person shall be subject to any penalty, including civil or criminal liability or professional discipline for participating in good faith compliance with this resolution.
c. A person that willfully seeks to cause a patient’s death without full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties.

Unfortunately, this is a bit wordy and leaves little room for "whereas" clauses arguing in favor of the resolution.

OCC: I fully admit this language relies shamelessly on the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml).

d. make two oral requests not less than fifteen days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;

Bah! Why limit it to lethal doses of drugs? What if they request a firing squad, the gas chamber, self-immolation, seppuku, or whatever babble-cock these people think of? Does it become immoral and unethical then? If so, how is lethal injection any more ethical?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Bah! Why limit it to lethal doses of drugs? What if they request a firing squad, the gas chamber, self-immolation, seppuku, or whatever babble-cock these people think of? Does it become immoral and unethical then? If so, how is lethal injection any more ethical?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Meh. The whole idea is to allow those who are terminally ill to end their suffering in a humane and dignified matter.

This is voluntary, self-administered, painless death for those already dying. Eligible patients have a terminal illness that will not be cured and will kill them within six months. There is nothing unethical about assisting such persons in ending their sufferring. Most of the objections you have raised in this thread ignore the fact that the patient IS ALREADY DYING. It is just a matter of how and when.

Your parade of horribles ignores the point of a humane, self-administered, and dignified death.

I do apologise for not providing a more up to date draft. However; I had a death in the family last Thursday and so am having to look after my brother and sister for a few days. I am coming online as and when I can; so I ask for fellow Nations patience. Cat-Tribe; many thanks for that wording of a proposal. I will use that as a basis for my rewrite.

I do apologise for not providing a more up to date draft. However; I had a death in the family last Thursday and so am having to look after my brother and sister for a few days. I am coming online as and when I can; so I ask for fellow Nations patience. Cat-Tribe; many thanks for that wording of a proposal. I will use that as a basis for my rewrite.

1. Don't worry about any "delay"

2. I am sorry to here about your family's misfortunes.

3. You might wish to see if anyone else thinks my language is an improvement before you adopt it. :wink:

I do apologise for not providing a more up to date draft. However; I had a death in the family last Thursday and so am having to look after my brother and sister for a few days. I am coming online as and when I can; so I ask for fellow Nations patience. Cat-Tribe; many thanks for that wording of a proposal. I will use that as a basis for my rewrite.

OOC: My deepest condolences. Really.

IC: Take your time, keep fighting the good fight. Don't let the hysteria you'll encounter wear you down.

Yours truly,

Got some free time for the first time in a few days. New draft in Post #1 with some changes.

OOC: Our deepest and most sincere sympathy, may this storm pass swiftly and most peacefully.

IC: We really like the new draft and feel that it is almost submission-grade. We have only two big concerns:

1) It may be too long, but with a subject of this gravity it needs to be deep, comprehensive, and well-detailed/laid out.

2) d. “Adult” means people who in their Nation have reached the age of majority; whether it be 16, 18 or 21 years of age.


Given that you have already stated only people of the Age of Majority for their Nation is eligible, can the "whether it be 16, 18 or 21 years of age" part be dropped, unless you wanted to set a minimum age requirement b/c some nations 10-13 is the beginning of their Age of Majority.

Meh. The whole idea is to allow those who are terminally ill to end their suffering in a humane and dignified matter.

This is voluntary, self-administered, painless death for those already dying. Eligible patients have a terminal illness that will not be cured and will kill them within six months. There is nothing unethical about assisting such persons in ending their sufferring. Most of the objections you have raised in this thread ignore the fact that the patient IS ALREADY DYING. It is just a matter of how and when.

Your parade of horribles ignores the point of a humane, self-administered, and dignified death.

Yet, every example is a form of "humane, self-administered, dignified death" in different cultures. Monks in the hills of Birm, Glen-Rhodes tend to light themselves on fire in protest of secular, anti-theist government policies. Seppuku is an ancient tradition found in many cultures where one disembowels themselves, rather than allowing themselves to be captured by enemies.

The point I was attempting to put forth is that this legislation purports a single "moral, ethical" way to kill oneself, as if to say that it's the only "moral, ethical" way to do so. As made clear by your response, the methods which I had outlined are deemed immoral and unethical, or at the very least inhumane and undignified, for no reason other than that they don't fit in to some prescribed form of acceptable suicide. All the methods are equally ridiculous.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Yet, every example is a form of "humane, self-administered, dignified death" in different cultures. Monks in the hills of Birm, Glen-Rhodes tend to light themselves on fire in protest of secular, anti-theist government policies. Seppuku is an ancient tradition found in many cultures where one disembowels themselves, rather than allowing themselves to be captured by enemies.

The point I was attempting to put forth is that this legislation purports a single "moral, ethical" way to kill oneself, as if to say that it's the only "moral, ethical" way to do so. As made clear by your response, the methods which I had outlined are deemed immoral and unethical, or at the very least inhumane and undignified, for no reason other than that they don't fit in to some prescribed form of acceptable suicide. All the methods are equally ridiculous.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Now you're engaged in a non sequitur. We could dispute theoretically whether methods other than those prescribed in the resolution are "humane, self-administered, and dignified," but that question is really irrelevant. That other methods may be approved by some cultures or in some situations does not mean that the method of humane, self-administered, and dignified death allowed for terminally-ill patients by the proposed resolution is "ridiculous."

You have yet to explain why the proposed resolution is inhuman, undignified, immoral, or unethical on any grounds other than it hastens death -- which argument ignores both the terminal illness and the suffering of the patient who wishes to control his/her own demise.

Thanks to The Cat-Tribe for the new layout of the proposal.

You're most welcome. Hopefully, I've helped rather than hurt your proposal.

however if it is deemed that they have sufficient mental faculties to wish for an assisted death they are to be treated as a normal person

Unnecessary, but mostly harmless language.

d. This Act is to ensure a dignified end to suffering; and is not meant to be used as an excuse for ‘ethnic cleansing’.

Unnecessary, but mostly harmless language.

e. a person who is wishing to terminate their life hasn’t in the preceding 12 months been part of a medical study and left during the study without a valid reason.

Nonsensical language and an incomplete sentence. After making my best guess at what you mean to be saying, I would not include such language.

f. A physician is within his rights to refuse an assisted death WITHOUT any penalties being levied against him.

Excellent addition.

6. A Terminal Illness would include any of the following and could be amended at any point

a. End stage Cancer
b. AIDS and/or HIV
c. Motor Neurone Disease
d. Any disease which leads to the eventual loss of movement and lessens the dignity of a citizen

This language is unnecessary and arguably contradicts the resolution's earlier definition of terminal illness. I'd leave it out.

Now you're engaged in a non sequitur. We could dispute theoretically whether methods other than those prescribed in the resolution are "humane, self-administered, and dignified," but that question is really irrelevant. That other methods may be approved by some cultures or in some situations does not mean that the method of humane, self-administered, and dignified death allowed for terminally-ill patients by the proposed resolution is "ridiculous."You are using a logical fallacy to bypass my argument completely. Tsk, tsk, Ambassador. I should mention that the only thing qualifying my opinion that all methods are equally ridiculous is that I think that all methods are equally ridiculous. So, if you want argue logical fallacy, not only am I stating an opinion and not a fact, but my conclusion is not dependent on a premise (All men are human; Ann is a human; Therefore, Ann is a man vs. All methods are equally ridiculous), so non sequitur is out.

You have yet to explain why the proposed resolution is inhuman, undignified, immoral, or unethical on any grounds other than it hastens death -- which argument ignores both the terminal illness and the suffering of the patient who wishes to control his/her own demise.I do believe I have sufficiently explained my opposition. Assisted suicide conflicts with existing ethical codes within the Glen-Rhodes medical society, would be the largest reason why I am opposed to this resolution. Among that, I've offered that the issue is too dependent upon the unique circumstances of each nation to legislation on an international level; that the issue completely undermines the research for cures for malignant diseases; that the proposal purports that suicide is a political freedom; and lastly, that the proposal is bias in its own that it forces other cultures in to its own little form of acceptable suicide.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Cat-Tribe I thank you for the points raised. I will address them immediately. And I thank others for their input. It is debates such as this that really define what the World Assembly is for; the discussion of serious issues such as this. I hope I can persuade some of the undecided to back my proposal.

Please keep opinions coming; it is your input which will hopefully see this come to be legislated.

Now you're engaged in a non sequitur. We could dispute theoretically whether methods other than those prescribed in the resolution are "humane, self-administered, and dignified," but that question is really irrelevant. That other methods may be approved by some cultures or in some situations does not mean that the method of humane, self-administered, and dignified death allowed for terminally-ill patients by the proposed resolution is "ridiculous."You are using a logical fallacy to bypass my argument completely. Tsk, tsk, Ambassador. I should mention that the only thing qualifying my opinion that all methods are equally ridiculous is that I think that all methods are equally ridiculous. So, if you want argue logical fallacy, not only am I stating an opinion and not a fact, but my conclusion is not dependent on a premise (All men are human; Ann is a human; Therefore, Ann is a man vs. All methods are equally ridiculous), so non sequitur is out.

Tsk, tsk, Ambassador, as you have used an argument about whether you committed a formal logically fallacy as a diversion from the substance of my post (which did respond directly to your argument). Please consdier the emphasized portion of my post and ignore the throw-away comment that your conclusion did not follow from your assertions. (Or to phrase it another way, your opinion is without justification.)

I do believe I have sufficiently explained my opposition.

And I believe you haven't. I think it unlikely either of us is going to convince the other into a change of opinion on the matter of Death with Dignity, but I will provide some further response with regard to others that may be considering this debate.

Assisted suicide conflicts with existing ethical codes within the Glen-Rhodes medical society, would be the largest reason why I am opposed to this resolution.

Why does assisted suicide for terminally ill patients conflict with medical ethical codes in Glen-Rhodes? Simply stating that it does so provides no argument as to why anyone else should agree with your opinion.

Among that, I've offered that the issue is too dependent upon the unique circumstances of each nation to legislation on an international level;

Meh. A vague non-argument. What unique circumstances?

Why should terminally ill patients in any nation be forced to suffer unnecessarily and die inhumane and undignified deaths?

that the issue completely undermines the research for cures for malignant diseases;

Bullshit. There is no logical relation between allowing Death with Dignity and the undermining of research for cures for malignant diseases.

that the proposal purports that suicide is a political freedom;

The proposal doesn't expressly say this, but it is the gist of it. Why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't individuals have control over their own lives, including their deaths when they are already dying?

and lastly, that the proposal is bias in its own that it forces other cultures in to its own little form of acceptable suicide.

Another vague non-argument. The proposal obviously requires nations to recognize Death with Dignity under certain circumstances, but otherwise leaves each nation to allow or condemn suicide as it sees fit.

If this resolution is to be brought to vote we would request that the provision regarding the methods by which death may be induced not be so detailed as to eliminate a variety of humane methods.

Urgenchis live extremely long lives and since the ravages of old age and most diseases have been eradicated many many Urgenchis choose to end their own lives at a time which suits them, rather than dieing of the most common cause of death by far in Urgench which is what we call cata-synapsis, a complete and sudden brain death which may strike at any time between the ages of 280 or 295 years of age.

Our law allows for a variety of methods to be used should assistance be required to commit suicide and all of them are completely humane and involve no pain or suffering to the individual concerned.

Yours,

If this resolution is to be brought to vote we would request that the provision regarding the methods by which death may be induced not be so detailed as to eliminate a variety of humane methods.

Urgenchis live extremely long lives and since the ravages of old age and most diseases have been eradicated many many Urgenchis choose to end their own lives at a time which suits them, rather than dieing of the most common cause of death by far in Urgench which is what we call cata-synapsis, a complete and sudden brain death which may strike at any time between the ages of 280 or 295 years of age.

Our law allows for a variety of methods to be used should assistance be required to commit suicide and all of them are completely humane and involve no pain or suffering to the individual concerned.

Yours,

Could you expand on this please? As far as I understand it; you would like me to take out the methods listed in the proposal?

Could you expand on this please? As far as I understand it; you would like me to take out the methods listed in the proposal?


In fact we have a problem with the level of detail contained in the entirety of this statute. It begs the question of what this statute is, is it an attempt to offer all citizens of member states of the w.a. the right to seek assisted suicide or is it a regulation of how assisted suicide is practiced within nations which already allow it ?

The first would only need to secure the right and offer sensible guidelines which take in to account the diversity of cultures and societies within this organisation.

The second is probably not needed since those nations which have already legalised assisted suicide would already have detailed and sensible ethical guidelines for how to offer it. And it seems completely insensitive and not terribly wise to over rule the ethical guidelines of member states who already allow assisted suicide especially since these guidelines will doubtless be infinitely more subtle and comprehensive as well as more tailored to the moral and cultural requirements for the societies which developed them.


We recommend that this statute should decide which it wishes to do, regulate assisted suicide or actually legalise it and offer guidelines of a general nature to member governments on how to frame that right in their national laws. In our opinion the current hybrid of the two will do neither thing very well and will create more problems than it solves.


Yours,

In fact we have a problem with the level of detail contained in the entirety of this statute. It begs the question of what this statute is, is it an attempt to offer all citizens of member states of the w.a. the right to seek assisted suicide or is it a regulation of how assisted suicide is practiced within nations which already allow it ?

The first would only need to secure the right and offer sensible guidelines which take in to account the diversity of cultures and societies within this organisation.

The second is probably not needed since those nations which have already legalised assisted suicide would already have detailed and sensible ethical guidelines for how to offer it. And it seems completely insensitive and not terribly wise to over rule the ethical guidelines of member states who already allow assisted suicide especially since these guidelines will doubtless be infinitely more subtle and comprehensive as well as more tailored to the moral and cultural requirements for the societies which developed them.


We recommend that this statute should decide which it wishes to do, regulate assisted suicide or actually legalise it and offer guidelines of a general nature to member governments on how to frame that right in their national laws. In our opinion the current hybrid of the two will do neither thing very well and will create more problems than it solves.


Yours,

I agree with the Ambassador here. Would it be too much to ask the Honorable Urgench to show us a little of how you think it would be worded, because I think it would be interesting to see? I kinda know where it would go, but I have a hell of a time getting thoughts in my head translated to "paper".

I agree with the Ambassador here. Would it be too much to ask the Honorable Urgench to show us a little of how you think it would be worded, because I think it would be interesting to see? I kinda know where it would go, but I have a hell of a time getting thoughts in my head translated to "paper".


Well that would be premature since the honoured Ambassador for Robert Hawkins has yet to indicate what direction they wish their statute to take, without a steer as to what kind of law the honoured Ambassador is writing it would be deeply presumptuous of us to offer any advice on what it would contain.

Keep in mind also that we are deeply wary of the w.a. legislating in this area in the first place, and our requests for certain changes have been with regard to the fact that the honoured delegation for Robert Hawkins seems to be very keen on introducing a law on this topic.


Yours,

Well that would be premature since the honoured Ambassador for Robert Hawkins has yet to indicate what direction they wish their statute to take, without a steer as to what kind of law the honoured Ambassador is writing it would be deeply presumptuous of us to offer any advice on what it would contain.

Keep in mind also that we are deeply wary of the w.a. legislating in this area in the first place, and our requests for certain changes have been with regard to the fact that the honoured delegation for Robert Hawkins seems to be very keen on introducing a law on this topic.


Yours,

Despite my assistance in drafting and my defense of the concept behind this proposal, I am still (as I specified in my first post) on the fence about whether the UN should legislate on this subject.

I don't agree with your critique, however. Although you have a point regarding not banning other means of death with dignity and that perhaps should be addressed, I don't think the Ambassador for Robert Hawkins has to "choose a direction" in the way you suggest.

The proposal clearly creates a right to Death with Dignity. It recognizes, however, that this is a more complicated matter than simply declaring an open-ended right. Procedures should be put in place to ensure that the right to Death with Dignity is not abused. This is defensible not only morally and logically, but as a political matter--because I think many more nations would object to an open-ended right without safeguards.

To my reading, the only part of the proposal that restricts nations that already recognize the right to Death with Dignity is Section 5(c).

5. Additional provisions:
*snip*
c. A person that wilfully seeks to cause a patient’s death without full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties.

I think that provision can be reworded and an additional provision can be added clarifying that nothing in the proposed resolution overrides existing laws allowing for Death with Dignity. I'll brainstorm on such language.

This may cause more trouble than it is worth, but what about substituting the following language for article 5(c) and adding an article 6:

5. Additional provisions:
*snip*
c. A person that willfully seeks to cause a patient’s death under this resolution but without full compliance with the procedures required herein and/or in violation of a nation's laws shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties,

6. The purpose of this resolution is to create a right to death with dignity under certain circumstances. Except that death with dignity must be allowed to terminally ill patients in full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution, nothing in this resolution shall be construed as changing the laws of individual nations regarding suicide, euthanasia, or death with dignity.

Despite my assistance in drafting and my defense of the concept behind this proposal, I am still (as I specified in my first post) on the fence about whether the UN should legislate on this subject.

And yet your assistance, honoured Ambassador, to the drafting of this statute would suggest very much to the contrary.

I don't agree with your critique, however. Although you have a point regarding not banning other means of death with dignity and that perhaps should be addressed, I don't think the Ambassador for Robert Hawkins has to "choose a direction" in the way you suggest.

We do think laws should have clear aims honoured Ambassador, even omnibus laws need a clear purpose with a defined effect.

The proposal clearly creates a right to Death with Dignity. It recognizes, however, that this is a more complicated matter than simply declaring an open-ended right. Procedures should be put in place to ensure that the right to Death with Dignity is not abused. This is defensible not only morally and logically, but as a political matter--because I think many more nations would object to an open-ended right without safeguards.

A right to Death with Dignity without detailed specifications but with guidelines on how to frame the right in law, with regard to certain ethical fixed points would not be an "opened ended" right.

To my reading, the only part of the proposal that restricts nations that already recognize the right to Death with Dignity is Section 5(c).

5. Additional provisions:
*snip*
c. A person that wilfully seeks to cause a patient’s death without full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties.

The whole business of having to get doctors to sign off and endless psychiatric mumbo jumbo being lumped in is intrusive enough. We have ethical guidelines which insure that abuse or misuse of the right to die with dignity does not happen without having to force people to undergo psychological testing and the indignity of having someone else be the arbiter of their own destiny. But that is a side issue if your suggestion about leaving existing laws in place is included.

I think that provision can be reworded and an additional provision can be added clarifying that nothing in the proposed resolution overrides existing laws allowing for Death with Dignity. I'll brainstorm on such language.


So you are proposing creating a system of laws for Death with Dignity for states which do not already have them and leaving intact the laws of member states which already have a right to Death with Dignity then ?

We would not objection to such a proposal in theory.


Yours,

Why does assisted suicide for terminally ill patients conflict with medical ethical codes in Glen-Rhodes? Simply stating that it does so provides no argument as to why anyone else should agree with your opinion.Well, hm. I guess I would have to say that Glen-Rhodes doctors believe in saving lives at all costs.

Meh. A vague non-argument. What unique circumstances?I've already mentioned them.

Why should terminally ill patients in any nation be forced to suffer unnecessarily and die inhumane and undignified deaths?This depends completely on what a culture sees as inhumane and undignified death. You have dismissed existing suicide practices many society see as dignified, so is it unbelievable that overdosing on medication may be seen as inhumane and undignified in many other societies? Is it unbelievable that some societies may actually see suicide, whether self-inflicted or assisted, is inhumane and undignified? Do not force your view of what is or is not acceptable down the throats of others, claiming that our practices are inhumane and undignified. It is an insult.

Bullshit. There is no logical relation between allowing Death with Dignity and the undermining of research for cures for malignant diseases.Again, a decreased amount of test subjects leads to a decreased chance in finding a cure.

The proposal doesn't expressly say this, but it is the gist of it. Why is that a bad thing? Shouldn't individuals have control over their own lives, including their deaths when they are already dying?Under the Framework of Government, the closest thing to a constitution in Glen-Rhodes, the purpose of government is to "provide for the protection of the safety of the People, their lives, prosperity, and property". Their lives, Ambassador, not their deaths. My government is not bound to allow people to decide their own deaths, although we cannot stop them from taking their lives. We can, however, stop medical professionals, whose purpose is to protect the sanctity of life, from assisting them.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Well, hm. I guess I would have to say that Glen-Rhodes doctors believe in saving lives at all costs.

"Saving lives at all costs"? Really?

Do you also deny patients the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and/or nutrition?

With all due respect, I see nothing particularly ethical about doctors that treat patients as abstract lives and not as real people with legitimate choices about their care.


This depends completely on what a culture sees as inhumane and undignified death. You have dismissed existing suicide practices many society see as dignified, so is it unbelievable that overdosing on medication may be seen as inhumane and undignified in many other societies? Is it unbelievable that some societies may actually see suicide, whether self-inflicted or assisted, is inhumane and undignified? Do not force your view of what is or is not acceptable down the throats of others, claiming that our practices are inhumane and undignified. It is an insult.

Holy hippos on a pogo-stick! I've insulted other cultural practices by endorsing one type of voluntary, painless, humane, self-administered, dignified method of death?

Let's re-trace this discussion:

Bah! Why limit it to lethal doses of drugs? What if they request a firing squad, the gas chamber, self-immolation, seppuku, or whatever babble-cock these people think of? Does it become immoral and unethical then? If so, how is lethal injection any more ethical?

Meh. The whole idea is to allow those who are terminally ill to end their suffering in a humane and dignified matter.

This is voluntary, self-administered, painless death for those already dying. Eligible patients have a terminal illness that will not be cured and will kill them within six months. There is nothing unethical about assisting such persons in ending their sufferring. Most of the objections you have raised in this thread ignore the fact that the patient IS ALREADY DYING. It is just a matter of how and when.

Your parade of horribles ignores the point of a humane, self-administered, and dignified death.

We could dispute theoretically whether methods other than those prescribed in the resolution are "humane, self-administered, and dignified," but that question is really irrelevant. That other methods may be approved by some cultures or in some situations does not mean that the method of humane, self-administered, and dignified death allowed for terminally-ill patients by the proposed resolution is "ridiculous."

You implied there was no ethical difference between death by firing squad, gas chamber, and the death with dignity completated by this thread's proposed resolution. As I made clear, endorsing one form of death with dignity does not necessarily exclude others. You, on the other hand, seem to at the same time be defending all methods of death as ethical (otherwise one has "insulted" some cultures) but contending that voluntary, painless, humane, dignified method of death by self-administration of lethal medications is not ethical. Make up your mind.

Again, a decreased amount of test subjects leads to a decreased chance in finding a cure.

Denying the use of a handful of terminally-ill patients that may wish to die with dignity rather than suffer for months as guinea pigs for those few months is a significant barrier to finding cures for diseases? I find that argument both illogical and repugnant.

Under the Framework of Government, the closest thing to a constitution in Glen-Rhodes, the purpose of government is to "provide for the protection of the safety of the People, their lives, prosperity, and property". Their lives, Ambassador, not their deaths. My government is not bound to allow people to decide their own deaths, although we cannot stop them from taking their lives. We can, however, stop medical professionals, whose purpose is to protect the sanctity of life, from assisting them.

Although I have deep respect for the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes and its esteemed Ambassador, I am saddened that neither the liberty nor the dignity of its people are protected by its government.

Regardless, this is not an argument about what you or any nation CAN currently do, but what you and other members states OUGHT to do. On that point, it appears no rewording of the OP's proposal will satisfy your concerns. Despite my arguments against your position, I do respect your view.

And yet your assistance, honoured Ambassador, to the drafting of this statute would suggest very much to the contrary.

In a vacuum, perhaps this would be true -- even though one can seek to improve the language of a resolution without agreeing that a resolution should be adopted, assistance in drafting a proposal and defending a proposal in argument would tend to indicate support for such a proposal.

I, however, have qualified my statements on this topic with the following statements (emphasis added):
For what it is worth, I am not entirely convinced the WA should legislate this matter (although the arguments in this thread against such legislation serve as some of the best reasons for such legislation). Nonetheless, I suggest the following language may help improve the proposed resolution:*snip*

Despite my assistance in drafting and my defense of the concept behind this proposal, I am still (as I specified in my first post) on the fence about whether the UN should legislate on this subject.
*snip*


In case this has not been clear enough, let me say that the arguments of other Ambassadors such as Dr. Bradford Castro and yourself combined with my own inherent reservations about WA legislation on the topic of death with dignity mean that I am not necessarily in favor of this proposal. I repeat: I am not necessarily in favor of this proposal or any WA legislation regarding euthanasia or death with dignity.

I personally believe in the right to death with dignity and recognize such a right in my nation, but I am unsure that the WA should require recognition of such a right by all nations.

Further, I am not at all committed to the language for the proposal I suggested. In fact, it may well be counter-productive. I thought it was a modest improvement on the language used by the OP at that time, but it may well be the wrong approach to this subject.


We do think laws should have clear aims honoured Ambassador, even omnibus laws need a clear purpose with a defined effect.

A right to Death with Dignity without detailed specifications but with guidelines on how to frame the right in law, with regard to certain ethical fixed points would not be an "opened ended" right.

The whole business of having to get doctors to sign off and endless psychiatric mumbo jumbo being lumped in is intrusive enough. We have ethical guidelines which insure that abuse or misuse of the right to die with dignity does not happen without having to force people to undergo psychological testing and the indignity of having someone else be the arbiter of their own destiny. But that is a side issue if your suggestion about leaving existing laws in place is included.

So you are proposing creating a system of laws for Death with Dignity for states which do not already have them and leaving intact the laws of member states which already have a right to Death with Dignity then ?

We would not objection to such a proposal in theory.

1. Perhaps you could let us know if the changes I suggest below would garner your approval for the proposed resolution:

This may cause more trouble than it is worth, but what about substituting the following language for article 5(c) and adding an article 6:

5. Additional provisions:
*snip*
c. A person that willfully seeks to cause a patient’s death under this resolution but without full compliance with the procedures required herein and/or in violation of a nation's laws shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties,

6. The purpose of this resolution is to create a right to death with dignity under certain circumstances. Except that death with dignity must be allowed to terminally ill patients in full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution, nothing in this resolution shall be construed as changing the laws of individual nations regarding suicide, euthanasia, or death with dignity.

2. If not, perhaps you could suggest alternative language or a general indication of what a proposal acceptable to you would look like.

6. The purpose of this resolution is to create a right to death with dignity under certain circumstances. Except that death with dignity must be allowed to terminally ill patients in full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution, nothing in this resolution shall be construed as changing the laws of individual nations regarding suicide, euthanasia, or death with dignity.

We would prefer that this clause read-

" Having created a right to die with dignity in accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution where none previously existed, this resolution respects, leaving unchanged, those laws and ethics regarding the right to die with dignity, Suicide and Euthanasia which member states may have already put in place to legalise these things. "

Or words to this effect.


Yours,

I thank Urgench for his wording of Clause 6. I have adapted it a bit; and added it to the original draft. New draft in post #1

With respect honoured Ambassador, the wording you have adapted from our suggested re-write does not strictly make sense.

6. Having created a right to die with dignity with the provisions laid out in this resolution where previously none previously existed; this resolution respects, and leaves unchanged, those laws and ethics regarding the right to die which Member States already have in place to legalise such actions.

"The right to die" is not really a right, and is not really an "action".

"Those laws and ethics regarding the right to die with dignity with which Member States may have already legalised that right"

Might make more sense and also take in to account character limits, if that was the motivation for your delegation's redaction of our suggested wording.


Yours,

I think we're getting dangerously close to the character limit arent we??? I understand this is a deep subject, but aint there a way we can condense it down without harming the prop?

With all due respect, I see nothing particularly ethical about doctors that treat patients as abstract lives and not as real people with legitimate choices about their care.It is because we value life that we work to protect and extend it.

You implied there was no ethical difference between death by firing squad, gas chamber, and the death with dignity completated by this thread's proposed resolution. As I made clear, endorsing one form of death with dignity does not necessarily exclude others. You, on the other hand, seem to at the same time be defending all methods of death as ethical (otherwise one has "insulted" some cultures) but contending that voluntary, painless, humane, dignified method of death by self-administration of lethal medications is not ethical. Make up your mind.I was making the point that it's rather hypocritical to accuse a nation of bigotry based on their ethical beliefs, when you propose that all nations must conform to your personal ethical belief of "death with dignity" (at least, what your personal ethical beliefs direct you to believe how and when suicide is dignified). I have not and I do not condone any form of suicide, assisted or otherwise.

Denying the use of a handful of terminally-ill patients that may wish to die with dignity rather than suffer for months as guinea pigs for those few months is a significant barrier to finding cures for diseases? I find that argument both illogical and repugnant.You are misunderstanding the argument. Currently, this 'assisted suicide' is illegal in Glen-Rhodes, so it's safe to say that most people do not consider it an option. In this case, when the options are (a) die from the illness or (b) die from the illness, but donate yourself to a good, scientific cause, those without the religious obligation of chose option (a) tend to choose option (b). If you introduce option (c) of dying quickly at the time of your choosing, do you not think that more people would choose it? By Sionis Prioratus (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14642754&postcount=40)'s own admission, those beyond any reasonable hope of being cured before they die would most likely choose assisted suicide over any other option. So, because people now have the choice of killing themselves, the distribution among the three options changes, with more people choosing to kill themselves over choosing to participate in scientific research. Because of that, instead of having 100 participants, and maybe curing 2 of them, we would only have 10 participants, and maybe only curing 1 of them every 15 studies. If this is not understandable, then I will stop trying to explain it and drop the argument, because it's obvious that my efforts are fruitless.

Regardless, this is not an argument about what you or any nation CAN currently do, but what you and other members states OUGHT to do. On that point, it appears no rewording of the OP's proposal will satisfy your concerns. Despite my arguments against your position, I do respect your view.
I do not disagree. You will not find me supporting any wording of this legislation. I am here to dispute the claims and convince people to not support it.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

By Sionis Prioratus (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14642754&postcount=40)'s own admission, those beyond any reasonable hope of being cured before they die would most likely choose assisted suicide over any other option. So, because people now have the choice of killing themselves, the distribution among the three options changes, with more people choosing to kill themselves over choosing to participate in scientific research. Because of that, instead of having 100 participants, and maybe curing 2 of them, we would only have 10 participants, and maybe only curing 1 of them every 15 studies. If this is not understandable, then I will stop trying to explain it and drop the argument, because it's obvious that my efforts are fruitless.

You should re-enroll in the Crash Course in Logic you made. It did not bear any fruits whatsoever. In what regards you to stop trying to explain it, it is by far the best idea you've had at this thread, I applaud it.

Yours,

You should re-enroll in the Crash Course in Logic you made. It did not bear any fruits whatsoever. In what regards you to stop trying to explain it, it is by far the best idea you've had at this thread, I applaud it.

Simple mathematics escapes you.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

*meh. snip.*

*Adrian rises up, and slaps a very large trout at Dr. Bradford Castro's face, which following the act, falls to the floor. Adrian's aides form a human shield, and applaud. They however, peg their noses, as Dr. Bradford Castro stench overpowers everyone.*

You are misunderstanding the argument. Currently, this 'assisted suicide' is illegal in Glen-Rhodes, so it's safe to say that most people do not consider it an option. In this case, when the options are (a) die from the illness or (b) die from the illness, but donate yourself to a good, scientific cause, those without the religious obligation of chose option (a) tend to choose option (b). If you introduce option (c) of dying quickly at the time of your choosing, do you not think that more people would choose it? By Sionis Prioratus (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14642754&postcount=40)'s own admission, those beyond any reasonable hope of being cured before they die would most likely choose assisted suicide over any other option. So, because people now have the choice of killing themselves, the distribution among the three options changes, with more people choosing to kill themselves over choosing to participate in scientific research. Because of that, instead of having 100 participants, and maybe curing 2 of them, we would only have 10 participants, and maybe only curing 1 of them every 15 studies. If this is not understandable, then I will stop trying to explain it and drop the argument, because it's obvious that my efforts are fruitless.

Again, we are only talking about patients that are going to die within six months--surely such patients are less numerous and less useful to study than you seem to be projecting.

OCC: In RL, the state of Oregon has a population of about 3.75 million. Since death with dignity was adopted in that state in 1997, only 401 patients have died pursuant to that law. Are you really going to claim the deaths of those 401 patients with six or less months to live over a 12-year period has significantly impacted medical research in Oregon?

*Adrian rises up, and slaps a very large trout at Dr. Bradford Castro's face, which following the act, falls to the floor. Adrian's aides form a human shield, and applaud. They however, peg their noses, as Dr. Bradford Castro stench overpowers everyone.*

Assistant Aesthetic Technician Eliza Hammeridge rushes to Dr. Castro, spraying him with cologne and wiping down his face hurriedly. Meanwhile, several internists surround Dr. Castro, wielding menacing, spring-powered launcher-like weapons holding some undisclosed ammunition, per Protocol 213 of the Diplomat Defense Act (What to Do When Threatened with Biological Attacks, World Assembly Certified Edition). With any luck, His Majesty wouldn't happen to be standing in front a window.

OCC: In RL, the state of Oregon has a population of about 3.75 million. Since death with dignity was adopted in that state in 1997, only 401 patients have died pursuant to that law. Are you really going to claim the deaths of those 401 patients with six or less months to live over a 12-year period has significantly impacted medical research in Oregon?OOC: No, no, of course not. But, who's to say that maybe ten people are diagnosed with some mysterious infectious disease in Glen-Rhodes, and because the option's available, eight of them choose euthanasia over participating in a medical study? This would seriously dampen the probably of figuring out how to cure the disease (unless you purposefully infect more people willing to participate).

*Adrian rises up, and slaps a very large trout at Dr. Bradford Castro's face, which following the act, falls to the floor. Adrian's aides form a human shield, and applaud. They however, peg their noses, as Dr. Bradford Castro stench overpowers everyone.*

Hey! Don't make me sue you for gimmick infringement.

Bob Flibble
The WA's Original Trout Slapper

(OOC: So as not to make things too Oregon-centered, it is worthy of note that the neighbouring state of Washington also approved by ballot an Euthanasia/Death with Dignity act in 2008: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Washington_Initiative_1000_(2008)

Full text of Washington's law: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf)

(OOC: So as not to make things too Oregon-centered, it is worthy of note that the neighbouring state of Washington also approved by ballot an Euthanasia/Death with Dignity act in 2008: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Washington_Initiative_1000_(2008)

Full text of Washington's law: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i1000.pdf)

OOC: It's a North Pacific conspiracy.

OOC: No it aint, I've heard Iowa and a few other Midwest states kick it around. Never got off the ground though :(

No I think that this is gonna be a real good proposal, once its ready to be submitted after the Author returns!!!

Im so excited and cant wait!

The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this. Surely if there is an issue that is best left to the discretion of national governments, this is it.

I have changed the wording of Clause 6; and changed/added to the original text.

OOC: I thank people for the kind words expressed after the tragedy. I am now ready to move on and hopefully get this proposal to a stage where it can be submitted.

I like the new changes and see nothing jumping out at me. I think its either ready or real close to submission grade!

This proposal needs to be cut down, as I am currently 800 characters too long for submission.

I have already cut a clause which was just waffle but need to make further cuts without losing the thrust of the proposal.

Let our own governments decide these issues not delegates in the WA. Euthanasia is not a right in my country, I'll leave that to your people just don't get me involved.

I must agree with Minucular Bob

Just so peeps know it has been submitted, and do urge all delegates to get out and put their approval on this bill. Its on page 1 of the list proposals.

Here's the link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal

Thanks!