At Vote:Repeal "Dignified End of Life Choices [Complete] [Complete]

Abacathea

Abacathea

TNPer
Repeal "Dignified End of Life Choices"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#54

Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy​

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #54: Dignified End of Life Choices (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Understanding that "Dignified End of Life Choices"(GA#54) attempts to provide euthanasia services to those who might reasonably seek them,

Realizing that Clause 5 reads: "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)",

Regretting that Clause 5 negates the bulk of the protections provided in the preceding clauses of GA#54, which opens up a whole host of concerns, which include:

* The patient in question will not be required to actually request the administration of lethal drugs,
* There is no need to ensure that a patient's request is voluntary, and
* Patients may be forbidden from rescinding a request for the administration of lethal drugs prior to their administration,

Believing that patients seeking euthanasia should be accorded greater protections than those accorded by this flawed resolution,

Encouraging the World Assembly to consider additional legislation on this subject,

Hereby repeals "Dignified End of Life Choices"(GA#54).

Co-authored by Mousebumples.
 
Ministerial Review;

Once again we have a repeal before us so I highlight my usual common sense view here that when scoping a repeal it's always important to note the arguments of the repeal vs the merits the targeted resolution would still retain after those have been addressed.

In this instance the repeal effort makes the argument that there are little protections afforded to someone desiring euthanasia. While this may seem somewhat oxymoronical the reality is though the act makes no provisions according to the repeal author for the revoking of consent for an act of euthanasia to be performed.

Furthermore the repeal author makes the argument that there is no verification process that a euthanasia request was made voluntarily, whether or not this is the case is debatable.

Having reviewed the original act however, it appears that the repeal arguments, at least those presented to us here are sufficiently covered in the target resolutions text, ie;

A) Make two oral requests not less than 5 days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;
B) Execute 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, of sound mind, and acting under free will. No witness shall be a blood relative or one who stands to gain from said patients’ death.
Click to expand...

3) Prior to legally prescribing lethal medication, the Attending and Consulting Physician must confirm the diagnosis and verify that the patient's request is voluntary. Physicians must also perform the following:
Click to expand...

Ministerial Suggestion;

While there are grounds for repealing DELC the arguments which have been made in this particular text are countered by the original resolution. The only justified reason for repealing in this instance by nations would and is likely to be the dislike of the text itself for other reasons, and using this chance to do so. But based solely on the arguments provided by the current repeal, the ministerial suggested vote is AGAINST.

As per usual this is only a suggested vote, please vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN below.
 
Aba, are you completely misreading the GA resolution that is trying to be repealed here? And the repeal itself? *scratches head*

The text of the resolution in question reads, in part: "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)"

Nations are only required to comply, then, with Sections 4D and 4E - are they not? Yes, all the other stuff is MENTIONED in the resolution itself, but more or less restrictive laws are welcome to be passed in individual member states - and they don't have to allow for anything else listed in the resolution. 4D and 4E are good clauses - don't get me wrong - but they are not enough, in my eyes, to provide appropriate protections for individuals who may be eligible for euthanasia.

Yes, I'm the co-author. Yes, I'm biased, probably. However, I'd like you to explain to me what - in the resolution in question - is prohibiting my nation from:
  • Not requiring that the patient in question be the one to actually request the administration of lethal drugs,
  • Not ensuring that a patient's request is voluntary, and
  • Forbidding patients from rescinding a request for the administration of lethal drugs prior to their administration?

Yes, they are in the resolution in question - but they do not apply because of that atrocious Clause 5.

I urge TNP to reconsider their vote and consider voting in favor of this repeal.
 
Mousebumples:
Aba, are you completely misreading the GA resolution that is trying to be repealed here? And the repeal itself? *scratches head*

The text of the resolution in question reads, in part: "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)"

Nations are only required to comply, then, with Sections 4D and 4E - are they not? Yes, all the other stuff is MENTIONED in the resolution itself, but more or less restrictive laws are welcome to be passed in individual member states - and they don't have to allow for anything else listed in the resolution. 4D and 4E are good clauses - don't get me wrong - but they are not enough, in my eyes, to provide appropriate protections for individuals who may be eligible for euthanasia.

Yes, I'm the co-author. Yes, I'm biased, probably. However, I'd like you to explain to me what - in the resolution in question - is prohibiting my nation from:
  • Not requiring that the patient in question be the one to actually request the administration of lethal drugs,
  • Not ensuring that a patient's request is voluntary, and
  • Forbidding patients from rescinding a request for the administration of lethal drugs prior to their administration?

Yes, they are in the resolution in question - but they do not apply because of that atrocious Clause 5.

I urge TNP to reconsider their vote and consider voting in favor of this repeal.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I am 'bumples.

As I've said in my review, yes this act is likely to pass given the amount of people who want it repealed, but for the reasons you've both presented here though it's not something objectively I can support.

I feel my assessment of things has normally been on the mark. The good faith effort compliance expected with any resolution ensures that at the minimum 4d and 4e are held as tennants of any law introduced by any other nation who are chosing to be in compliance with this act, assuming they're not complying with the current text as is. A nation having a less restrictive act in effect seems highly unlikely in my opinion. If nations are applying the act in it's current state then it moots the arguments for a repeal which you and Douria have presented, or if not at least weakens them considerably to hypothesising that nations may be using less restrictive legislation in their home nation, and may be guilty of the loopholes you and Douria claim exist. It seems a fairly weak argument in light of the strength of the target resolution is all I'm saying. I believe I clarified that at the start of my review, that one must always weight the strength of the target vs the holes being poked by the repeal.

At the end of the day, these are only suggested votes, the voting majority can and has gone against these suggestions in the past, In this case they haven't.

If you really feel I've provided an unfair consideration of this, please do speak to McM regarding it.

Aba.
 
Abacathea:
I don't believe I am 'bumples.

As I've said in my review, yes this act is likely to pass given the amount of people who want it repealed, but for the reasons you've both presented here though it's not something objectively I can support.

The good faith effort compliance expected with any resolution ensures that at the minimum 4d and 4e are held as tennants of any law introduced by any other nation who are chosing to be in compliance with this act, assuming they're not complying with the current text as is. A nation having a less restrictive act in effect seems highly unlikely in my opinion. If nations are applying the act in it's current state then it moots the arguments for a repeal which you and Douria have presented, or if not at least weakens them considerably to hypothesising that nations may be using less restrictive legislation in their home nation, and may be guilty of the loopholes you and Douria claim exist. It seems a fairly weak argument in light of the strength of the target resolution is all I'm saying. I believe I clarified that at the start of my review, that one must always weight the strength of the target vs the holes being poked by the repeal.
Click to expand...
It's not that you're not doing what you think is a good assessment - I just don't understand why you don't think it's possible that some (perhaps many?) nations are putting less restrictive procedures for euthanasia in place. Why do you think that a less restrictive setup is "highly unlikely" ? Because you, personally, are less likely to have a less restrictive setup than what's mandated? *scratches head* Again, I don't really understand where the "highly unlikely" bit comes in - is there other GA precedent that I'm spacing on that makes the other clauses inconsequential?

Many nations have loopholing agents that specialize in ensuring that they only follow the letter of WA law. I'd hope that most nations aren't implementing less restrictive laws - but I'm certainly not willing to bank people's lives on that hope!

So, I guess that's my question. Why do you think that nations enacting a less restrictive euthanasia law is "highly unlikely" ? And why are you willing to bet people's lives on the matter?

Again, it looks likely to pass, so I suppose I'm tilting at windmills, to some extent. But after our discussion in this thread, I will say that your recommendation against the repeal caught me off-guard. So I guess I'm just wondering where/why your change of heart/mind/analysis came from.
 
So, I guess that's my question. Why do you think that nations enacting a less restrictive euthanasia law is "highly unlikely" ? And why are you willing to bet people's lives on the matter?
Click to expand...

Edit - Discussing this matter with Douria, weighting up your comments to date, and reviewing both acts once more.

Will post a final decision below.
 
mowa-seal.png

To the honorable TNP Delegate;

Whilst we are not sure of TNP protocol in this instance, in light of a multitude of conversations with both authors of the above proposal, and a re-evaluation of the proposal in microscopic detail, the ministry at this time wishes to advise the voting majority an amendment to the suggested vote at this time to a FOR vote.

We would also advise the delegate that at this time, the regional vote outside of the forums has shifted accordingly in this respect and would recommend a recast of the vote on the part of the delegate in light of this.

The ministry at this time issues an apology for any upset this may have caused to spectators, or internal members alike and will be acknowledging it in the weekly TG going forth, while some objections still stand, the end result of the reassessment has been that this decision is in the best interests of both the region and the proposal going forth.

Yours,

[me]
Minister for WA Affairs,
The North Pacific.
 
I hope you visit us more often Mousebumples, I'd like to see this sort of discussion on every proposal before the floor :P

The vote is passing at the moment and our forum vote remains against. As it is my policy to vote based on the forum vote I will keep my vote as against at this point in time, unless other WA members vote in favour of this proposal. Aba may wish to discuss changing this policy at a later date.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I hope you visit us more often Mousebumples, I'd like to see this sort of discussion on every proposal before the floor :P

The vote is passing at the moment and our forum vote remains against. As it is my policy to vote based on the forum vote I will keep my vote as against at this point in time, unless other WA members vote in favour of this proposal. Aba may wish to discuss changing this policy at a later date.
Click to expand...
I may do so after elections. We'll see how it goes. As I've said the forum votes how the forum votes regardless of my suggestions I only give my view. If others chose to remain against so be it. Personally my vote is now abstain.
 
Abacathea:
The ministry at this time issues an apology for any upset this may have caused to spectators, or internal members alike and will be acknowledging it in the weekly TG going forth, while some objections still stand, the end result of the reassessment has been that this decision is in the best interests of both the region and the proposal going forth.
Click to expand...
No worries, Aba. And I appreciate your reconsideration - and I can understand and respect your decision to personally abstain on this matter.

And, McM, I hope to be somewhat active on this fora - although I'll fully admit that I have more interest (and generally more vocal opinions to share) on proposals I have a direct involvement in. RL's keeping me from diving full-on into the WA drafting scene, but I'm always happy to share what intel I have, as time permits.

Cheers, etc.,
Mouse :)
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top