[GA - At Vote] Repeal: "Access To Euthanasia Services"

---

The General Assembly,

Admiring the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #598 to ensure citizens of member states are afforded dignity and autonomy in their final days,

Concerned, however, that the resolution in question mandates several practices which unnecessarily increase the likelihood of abuse of this procedure, those being the following:

Section (1)(b)(ii) dictates that life-ending services are to be made available to those suffering from an incurable condition that “directly and severely compromises their quality of life with no realistic prospect of improvement,” a provision which is ill-suited,

• “Severely” is not elaborated upon in the form of a definition or guidance, opening the door for drastic variations in interpretation between citizens based on occupation, living situation, and access to mitigating care,
  
  
• In situations with a lack of “realistic prospect of improvement,” mitigating care may be available, especially for physical injuries. Governments should strive to provide this care as an alternative to euthanasia services,

Sections (2) and (3) require member states to fund euthanasia services and provide the necessary travel to obtain them, which is flawed as it imposes a burden on the member state’s government and potentially unduly incentivizes the euthanasia process,

• While there is a requirement for potential alternatives to euthanasia to be communicated to a patient in (1)(a), there is no requirement for the member state to provide those at its own expense as there is for euthanasia, potentially prompting worse-off citizens to choose euthanasia over treatment,

Reaffirming support for the dignity of those ill and injured, though unable to reconcile the flaws of this resolution,

Hereby repeals “Access to Euthanasia Services”.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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!

---

For

For

For

For

Abstain

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

I agree that we should repeal 598.

Though, I propose that we repropose it to the WA stripped of the langauge of sections 2 and 3:

• 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.
  
  
• 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

While these provisions do put unnecessary tax burdens upon the citizens of member states, hence why I am voting for repeal of 598. The language of the current proposal limits a patient's rights to self-termination.


Specifically I object to the language of the repeal wherein it states:

"directly and severely compromises their quality of life with no realistic prospect of improvement,"
"Severely” is not elaborated upon in the form of a definition or guidance, opening the door for drastic variations in interpretation between citizens based on occupation, living situation, and access to mitigating care"

The State has no direct right to define the limits upon which its citizens claim a compromise to quality of life, or prospect of improvement. Particularly on purely internal matters, or matters of faith. No doctor, psychologist, theologian, or otherwise, can precisely map the interiority of a person to the extent that they can safely claim any issue is 'temporary' or 'livable', and by repealing the right to self-termination, we are in-fact mandating that our citizens be forced to live in conditions wherein they can find no mercy, shelter, or succor.

Repeal 598: Yes.

Re-propose without language demanding the tax burdens? Also yes.

Against...