General Assembly Resolution #593 “Access to Life-Ending Services” (Category: Health; Area of Effect: Healthcare) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
The World Assembly,
Believing that access to euthanasia is an important right for those who deem it necessary and that if there were to be a resolution on it with gaping flaws, that resolution disservices the people internationally,
Disappointed that
GA#593 Access to Life-Ending Services, in subclause 1.a(iv), allows member states to opt-out entirely as it excludes euthanasia to only patients with an incurable “serious” illness that is fatal or causes “unbearable” agony, which may be abused by nations unwilling to provide euthanasia with the simple argument that the patient’s illness is not serious enough or the agony is bearable (as the individual is physically "bearing" it by being alive); thus, any effort to provide euthanasia to people in member states that do not provide it has been crushed and any member state can declare that any individual does not follow 1.a(iv) and is therefore ineligible for assisted suicide. This entire resolution is at a base-level unreasonable with this exclusion, so malleable it is embarrassing, and is entirely self-defeating in reality,
Embarrassed at subclause 1.c, stating that a “locally accessible” assisted suicide clinic is one with travel that places no “substantial” burden on quality of life, time, or finances. As there is no arbiter of what is substantial, this poses a threat for those seeking euthanasia, as it could lead to euthanasia being impossibly expensive to reach. It is also quite hilarious that quality of life must be considered for death,
Outraged further by Clause 2 which, instead of offering to pay for assisted suicide clinics that medical professionals without moral objections would run (and thus removing the need for Clause 6 and a lot of controversy in the topic), has member states arrange for eligible patients in areas without “locally accessible” (which is widely meaningless) assisted suicide services to “travel to the nearest clinic within WA jurisdiction that provides assisted suicide services.” This means two things, both unacceptable:
- The first interpretation of “within WA jurisdiction” is within territory under direct control by the WA, ie the WA headquarters. While ambassadors may want to seek assisted suicide after debates about the death penalty, employees vs. independent contractors, or paid leave, an assisted suicide clinic has no place in the headquarters of a legislative body, and thus there is no such nearest clinic to travel to, defeating the entire purpose of the resolution.
- The second interpretation of “within WA jurisdiction” is within every WA member state. This would oftentimes mean deporting eligible patients to warzones, staunch enemies or otherwise hostile nations, quarantined nations, and potentially even nations unreachable by the arranging member state’s technology, as “nearest” does not factor in diplomatic relations, military activity, health, general safety, or practicality.
Ashamed that Clause 5 is
yet another opt-out of the entire resolution as compelling is entirely subjective; member states would comply with the resolution by claiming that “euthanasia opposes our state interest of not killing our people” is compelling enough,
Shocked that Clause 8 lets member states jack up the prices of assisted suicide, as again there is no arbiter of what a “substantial” burden to the patient’s finances is, thus essentially robbing patients in unbearable agony already,
Dispirited that Clause 8 lets member states pay absolutely nothing since “serious” damage to the nation’s economy is almost meaningless and allows member states to claim paying for assisted suicide services would pose a threat to the economic health of the nation, thus forcing the World Assembly to pay for it when it is entirely causeless,
Finding GA#593 to be unmistakably flawed, to the point where repeal is necessary,
Hereby repeals GA#593.
