[GA - PASSED] Access to Euthanasia Services

---

Whereas individuals should possess the right to end their life on their own terms if they are in unbearable agony, and

Whereas the supposed dangers of permitting access to assisted suicide do not outweigh the right to have a dignified death,

Be it enacted as follows:

1. Let these terms be defined as follows for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. "Informed consent" is bona fide consent provided by an individual on their own free will to a medical procedure, where they are fully aware of what they are consenting to, all significant consequences, and any potential alternatives; the individual in question may withdraw such consent at any time, and this consent may also be provided conditionally.
      
      
   2. “Assisted suicide” is a medical procedure to directly, quickly, and painlessly end the life of a patient, where:
      1. the patient has provided informed consent to the procedure and method thereof, and
         
         
      2. the patient has an incurable physical condition that will directly result in their death in the foreseeable future, or directly and severely compromises their quality of life with no realistic prospect of improvement.
   3. An "eligible patient" is an individual who biologically can die and is able to receive assisted suicide as per 1b.i and 1b.ii.
      
      
   4. Assisted suicide services are "locally accessible" in a given area if any necessary travel to receive said services poses no substantial burden to quality of life, time, or finances to individuals in that area seeking such services.
2. Member states must provide fully subsidised assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction. Member states must also arrange and provide fully subsidised travel to receive such services for any eligible patient in areas within their jurisdiction where such services are not locally accessible. All such services and travel must be at no monetary cost to recipients.
   
   
3. If a member state demonstrates bona fide to the General Accounting Office that they are unable to fund Section 2 services and travel without causing serious damage to their economy or finances, that member state shall receive funds from the World Assembly General Fund assessed by the General Accounting Office to aid them in funding Section 2 services and travel. Member states may not use such funds for any purpose other than funding Section 2 services and travel.
   
   
4. No member state may discriminate against any persons, or persons related thereof, for receiving, seeking, administering, or otherwise facilitating, assisted suicide or Section 2 services, in ways including but not limited to:
   1. tax discrimination by placing a higher burden of tax on said persons,
      
      
   2. prosecuting individuals, or individuals related thereof, for receiving, seeking, administrating, or otherwise facilitating, assisted suicide or Section 2 services,
      
      
   3. withholding any inheritance from the heirs of individuals due to said individuals having died by assisted suicide or Section 2 assisted suicide, or
      
      
   4. failing to provide equal protection before the law to said persons.
5. No member state may implement any policy with a cognisable impact of hindering the ability of eligible patients to receive assisted suicide, unless that policy does not violate any other provisions of this resolution and that member state demonstrates bona fide to the Independent Adjudicative Office that the policy furthers a clearly stated, compelling, and practical state interest, with narrowly tailored means that are the least restrictive means necessary to achieve said interest.
   
   
6. No member state, persons, or group of persons may deliberately coerce or require an individual to seek or receive assisted suicide, nor may any member state, persons, or group of persons deliberately coerce or require an individual against seeking or receiving assisted suicide.
   
   
7. A medical professional expressing a bona fide objection against performing assisted suicide may not be required to perform assisted suicide, as long as that professional directs patients seeking assisted suicide to easily, readily, and locally accessible assisted suicide services. No member state, persons, or group of persons may deliberately coerce or require a medical professional to either provide or not provide such an objection.
   
   
8. In this resolution, singular words include the plural unless otherwise indicated, and older extant World Assembly resolutions shall overrule any conflicting provisions within this resolution. Member states must interpret and obey this resolution in good faith.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

IFV

---

Overview
This proposal seeks to replace GAR#593 "Access to Life-Ending Services". It once again affirms that member states "must provide fully subsidised assisted suicide services to eligible patients within their jurisdiction." It then goes on to establish that the WA may fund travel to jurisdictions with assisted suicide facilities if none such exist in a nation's territory and it would be a financial burden for that state to create one. It then establishes non-discrimination policies for those undergoing the procedure and non-coercion over the practice before finally concluding by allowing doctors in member states to opt out of performing the procedure if they have a "bona fide" objection to such.

Recommendation
This proposal does an excellent job of replacing the recently repealed GAR#593. It tightens the language and provides more of an argument for the chosen category of Health and its application area of Healthcare. Additionally, it provides a sterling protection for doctors who may find this procedure morally objectionable. To wit, while we are of the opinion this could be a problem if the General Assembly ever takes up the topic of abortion in quite the way of "Conscientious Objection to Abortion" and passes it. Especially given that moral grounds were not considered grounds for opting out of ostensibly a medical procedure then, we might be left to wonder if section 8 is at least advisable. However, that does not change our support for our legislation or its primary provisions.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Access to Euthanasia Services".

---

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!

For

For

For

For.

For

For

For

This proposal has received the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Wednesday's Minor Update.*

*Apparently my brain has decided calculating things is too difficult.

Against

For

Against. This resolution is worse than what it replaced on several levels. If this is a conscience vote I'd vote against and move to redraft, but if it's a three line whip I may change my vote. The main issues are (1) it actually places greater restrictions on who is entitled to life ending services(*) (2) it requires governments to pay for it (which creates a loophole for governments that cannot afford it, and for those like myself who oppose universal government funded health care like the NHS). (3) clause (4)(1) can be used against clause (7) for the medical professionals, (4) clause (8) may introduce a religious or conscience objection that will render this moot, as mentioned on the Discord.

Just to name a few. The Forum also had plenty of examples of discussions (counting previous discussions on the preceding resolutions about cost, safety, whether "medical professionals" need to be qualified (and if so how) etc. We really need to redraft this.

(*) The repealed resolution defined an "eligible patient" as "an individual eligible to receive assisted suicide who has provided the necessary consent and is in a species that biologically can die". That's a flaw this resolution fixes, but I'd rather not trade the old resolution for this.

For

For

"Access To Euthanasia Services" has passed 10,712 votes (72.9%) to 3,987 (27.1%). This is author Apatosaurus's 3rd passed General Assembly Resolution and co-author @Imperium Anglorum's 47th passed General Assembly Resolution.