[GA] Rights for the Terminally Ill

[Mousebumples]

Hey all!

As you might know (if you stalk the GA proposal queue), there's a repeal At Quorum to get rid of Dignified End of Life Choices. I'm hopeful that the repeal will be successful, and I've decided to stretch my proposal writing muscles and draft a replacement.

I'm taking a fairly NatSov approach, I'll admit - allowing nations to determine whether or not they will allow euthanasia but setting requirements for those that do want to allow euthanasia within their borders. It'll probably be 2+ weeks before the repeal will be at vote, so I won't be submitting this for at least that long. Still, I'd like to get a good proposal in place on what I know is a pretty contentious topic.

Anyhow, here goes ... and I'll have a few more comments at the bottom as well:

Rights for the Terminally Ill
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Author: Mousebumples​

Description: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

UNDERSTANDS that the terminally ill may be a threatened class of individuals within some nations and should be accorded specific rights and protections;

RECOMMENDS member nations provide resources to allow their citizens and residents to complete advance health directives (e.g. living will) to ensure that their wishes are followed in the event of a terminal illness;

PERMITS member nations to determine whether or not to allow euthanasia within their borders;

REQUIRES member nations that elect to allow euthanasia within their borders to obey the following:

1. Terminally ill patients shall make the request of their own volition prior to the administration of any euthanasia medications. Advance health directives may serve as such a request, in the event that the terminally ill patient is unable to communicate effectively,
2. Requests for euthanasia must be voluntary and uncoerced.
3. Teminally ill patients shall be given the opportunity to rescind their request for euthanasia medications prior to their administration.
4. No physicians or other medical professionals shall be required to perform euthanasia or euthanasia-related activities, nor shall they be penalized or fined for such a refusal, and
5. Euthanasia shall not be used to remove undesirable people from a nation's population;

ENSURES that sufficient pain medications shall be made available to terminally ill patients, so as to ensure no individuals are opting for euthanasia so as to avoid the pain;

STIPULATES that individuals shall not be restricted from leaving their home nation to seek euthanasia treatment elsewhere.

This needs some updating/redrafting, but I haven't had time quite yet. Here's a quick list of things that I'm likely to edit/add:

• Require physicians that refuse to perform euthanasia to provide a referral to a willing physician,
• Definitions of some sort for "euthanasia" and "terminally ill," and
• A clause encouraging all nations to improve their end of life care to minimize the need for euthanasia due to treatable/fixable things.

I'm also planning to do more research on RL euthanasia programs to see what their standards are and how they work in practice. Certainly, if anyone has such RL knowledge, feel free to make my life easier and share that sort of intel.

As always, opinions are welcome!

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I like this proposal (though I am interested to know what Aba thinks on it). Thanks for posting the draft here.

 

[Abacathea]

I like this proposal (though I am interested to know what Aba thinks on it). Thanks for posting the draft here.

Bumples rarely misses and hits the wall. In truth the Ministry is likely to recommend a for on the repeal effort even thought we've some issues with the repeal proposal itself. Good work as per usual Mousey.

That said, I've never essentially bought the NatSov approach, primarily because I believe IntFed legislation usually is designed to ensure we're all on the same page when it comes to important issues. So personally I'm against allowing individual member nations to make a call on this issue. We all know the likes of Auralia, Christian Democrats and so forth would have a field day on this.

Ministerially though my only flaw with the draft is regarding the provision of pain medication, and I have two specific concerns relating to it;

A: Would this be a burden on the poorer nations to supply this?
B: Can the wording be clarified to ensure that this is a requirement across all nations irrespective of their stance on euthanasia allowance?

Personally, I'd be voting against, and it would be primarily for personal reasons, however the ministerial view is always meant to be objective so it's likely providing you come back to me on the above we would recommend a for vote objectively only.

 

[Mousebumples]

I'm much more NatSov'y on euthanasia than I am on abortion. (While I would like to get an abortion blocker passed, it would be more in line with the RoAA - which has been repealed - but ensure that abortion is legalized everywhere.) I think this is a contentious enough topic that a full-out prohibition or legalization of euthanasia is unlikely to pass. The NatSov's would vote against, and those on one end or the other would also vote against. Plus, it's likely to have a repeal attempt - presuming it passes - be submitted every 5 minutes.

Can I ask what sort of circumstances you're afraid of being implemented in Auralia, CD, etc.? I'm happy to further expand upon hospice-style care - to a point - but too much of that may also end up shoving this into Social Justice, and I'd rather do Human Rights, personally.

I'll probably move the pain-med stuff earlier in the proposal - it was just a late addition to the proposal, so it got tacked onto the end for the first draft. I think that would be the clearest way: (1) stuff everyone has to do; (2) Nat Sov clause; (3) stuff that will happen if you legalize euthanasia; (4) stuff that will happen if you outlaw euthanasia. Ta da! ... Or something.

Thanks again for the support, guys - and, again, Aba, if there's something in particular that you think is currently happening in Auralia/CD (because the current legislation does nothing to outlaw anything for nations that don't have euthanasia, ftr) ... let me know.

 

[Abacathea]

I just know the Christian nations will automatically opt, not to allow it, which is disheartening considering presently they don't have a choice. And I personally prefer it that way.

 

[Mousebumples]

I just know the Christian nations will automatically opt, not to allow it, which is disheartening considering presently they don't have a choice. And I personally prefer it that way.

Yes ... they do. Have you read the current resolution?

The resolution currently on the books contains the following clause:

5. This resolution shall not preclude a nation from enacting an assisted suicide law that is less or more restrictive than this resolution, so long as said law complies with Sections 4 (D) and 4 (E).

4 (D) and 4 (E) read as follows:

D) This Act is to ensure a dignified end to suffering; it CANNOT and SHALL NOT be used as an excuse to remove undesirable people.
E) A physician has the right to refuse to take part in an assisted death WITHOUT any penalties whatsoever being levied against her/him.

As such, CD is welcome to pass an Assisted Suicide Law that outlaws Assisted Suicide, is he not? Clause 5 renders the rest of the clauses irrelevant, sadly.

 

[Abacathea]

Hmm, food for thought. As an aside, it seems I've allowed my personal thoughts to slip out a tad here.

Purely objectively, it's a fine piece as per usual Mousey, and assuming you make the structural changes you've stated above, I see no reason to submit to the TNP that they should vote any way other than for

 

[Mousebumples]

I tend to be in favor of euthanasia being allowed, personally. However, my feelings on euthanasia are similar to abortion - I'd like it to be safe, legal, and rare because it's not needed. Not that I expect that we'll cure all the currently existing debilitating diseases, but if we can help people to cope with dying better - through pain meds and other means - I'd prefer that to having the numbers of people requesting euthanasia endlessly increase.

Anyhow, your provisional support - objectively speaking - is appreciated, at least. I know we may not often see eye-to-eye, politically, but I do appreciate your candidness and your ability to look at resolutions objectively. (I know I don't always manage to do that, so ... definitely something notable!)