S2:Southern Ban on Euthanasia

[Wisconsin+17]

Euthanasia ban

Given that - states such as Canada and the Netherlands have seen their euthanasia rates increase 8 fold

Given that - euthanasia is now the 6th highest cause of death in Canada.

Given that euthanasia has been delivered to those who are neither in terminal illness nor in pain.

Given that the weak and vulnerable in society should not feel pressure to kill themselves.

Given that euthanasia has been abused as a tool to eradicate undesireables in the past.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The chamber of delegates will ban euthanasia throughout the South. No doctor nor nurse may apply treatment with the primary intent of killing their patient. Doctors or Nurses found liable for euthanasia shall be fined 50k for the first offense, and stripped of their license on the second offense. Further offenses would be arrested for a charge of murder.

[Wisconsin+17]

This bill is now up for Debate.

[NeverAgain]

As the Representative who crafted and sponsored the "Death with Dignity Act", this bill is entirely against the ideals of freedom and individual choice that both this nation and region are built upon. We are a nation of morals, yes. But is it moral for a man, with weeks of life left, to be forced to be in agony and torture?

I say, as did our FEDERALIST House of Representatives, our FEDERALIST Senate, and our FEDERALIST President, that this is both a bill to support the morals of a people and their individual freedoms. Without these fundamental human rights, we are no people, living or dead.

Our "Death with Dignity" Act that has extensive limits, and helps ensure that it is the decision SOLELY of the patient, and no one else, to end their lives.

I can continue on but please, EVERYONE, read the bill HERE!.

I act that this body upholds the values of morality, freedom, and true individual liberty in voting Nay on this bill.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The men and women of Canada had similar 'safeguards'. The issue isn't that people should have the right to kill themselves - which they do - but whether or not we will permit others to kill them. Nurses, and Doctors should not be permitted to kill their patients. In Canada we are seeing men and women denied treatment because the treatment is seen as futile and more expensive than a pill that would kill them.

Does this seem compassionate to you NeverAgain? Should we not do the best we can to preserve life, not end it?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I support this legislation on the basis that government has a duty to protect life. Allowing things like assisted sucicide or abortion are a moral stain on our society

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The men and women of Canada had similar 'safeguards'. The issue isn't that people should have the right to kill themselves - which they do - but whether or not we will permit others to kill them. Nurses, and Doctors should not be permitted to kill their patients. In Canada we are seeing men and women denied treatment because the treatment is seen as futile and more expensive than a pill that would kill them.

Does this seem compassionate to you NeverAgain? Should we not do the best we can to preserve life, not end it?

What? Give me an example of this. The option is solely up  to the patient, and not to the doctor. I have researched this and see ZERO evidence of any doctors revoking care based on the face that they think the patient should die...? In fact, I see the reverse, especially in the highly controversial Rodriguez v British Columbia case, where a woman was denied her own choice in the end of her life. She later did commit suicide, illegally and unsafely, lacking the dignity she so desired.

 In the Canadian single-payer system, I see zero cost-benefit for the doctor to attempt to force the patient to choose euthanasia, as care is being provided for nationally. The doctor cannot, legally or sensibly kill their patients or suggest they kill their patients on the basis that it is "futile". They would have their medical license revoked, as that is literally the part of the Hippocratic Oath "I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God."

The "I must not play God" part would be a better argument here, but even that has it's limits because though the original oath does not include ethics for euthanasia, it does forbid the use of poison. Since poison is only one way (AND NOT THE WAY WE DO IT IN MY BILL MIND YOU! The drug cocktail is a painless medication that takes affect almost immediately) to perform euthanasia, though most conventional, the oath cannot nor will ever cover euthanasia, entirely. And we've covered that in my bill!

We should preserve life, as doctors should and must do EVERYTHING they can to preserve that life. But when they diagnose something that is terminal, then they should act in the best interests of their patient, and their decision should be final. THAT is compassionate, that is the moral good.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/terminally-ill-mom-denied-treatment-coverage-but-gets-suicide-drugs-approved/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

This study shows that 17 percent of all cases the doctor proceeds anyways without consent. So, no it is not 'up to the patient'. So long as the doctor has care over terminally ill patients, they are at risk of being killed without their consent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've provided the citation above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two ways to ration a system, price or quotas. Canada's single payer system cannot ration by price, therefore they ration by quota.  The majority of the cost of a person's medical care for their entire life comes in the last year of their life. There are significant financial incentives to deny care and supply an euthanasia pill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, it can and has happened already.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why we should oppose euthanasia as it violates the principle of 'first do no harm'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You cannot do both. If you sincerely believe that doctors should try to save the lives of their patients, you cannot have them kill the patient.

[NeverAgain]

I will have my response to this tomorrow afternoon
.

[Classic Conservative]

Wonderful bill!

[JustinTimeCuber]

Wonderful Awful freedom-killing bill!

ftfy

[Wisconsin+17]

I'm going to open up a 72 hour vote on this bill, as debate has died down.

[NeverAgain]

I make a motion to pause final voting for 24 hours, so that I can finish my debating post, because the Academic Journal the Speaker sent me was a bit lengthy, so I have been trying to summarize as best I can.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've had 48 hours subsequent to this post.

[NeverAgain]

Well, when you are reading and analysising the "Moby Dick" of Euthanasia Studies, it takes you longer than you think.

[Wisconsin+17]

I already gave you precisely the time you're asking for, amusingly enough.

[NeverAgain]

I already gave you precisely the time you're asking for, amusingly enough.

Kay, I mean, this has enough votes to pass. I really do not see why allowing me to finish gathering my notes and then continuing debate, would be so Deeply Disturbing. The stuff you sent me was quite long, I take a while to detail things, and this didn't get to my faily checklist. I just want until the end of the evening to finish it up, as I asked for last evening.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Time and tide wait for no man".

You stated you wanted 24 hours to compose a reply on Sunday and I gave you 48 hours, and didn't start the vote on the bill until Tuesday. That you didn't consider it a sufficient priority on Monday or Tuesday is not my problem, but yours. Clearly the legislation just isn't that important to you.

Perhaps you should make better use of your time.

[Santander]

I vote Yea

[NeverAgain]

Let us begin by first clarifying the focus of the existing national law:  It is PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE – NOT “Nurses, and Doctors . . . permitted to kill their patients.”  The actor in Physician Assisted suicide is the terminally ill patient with the Physician as facilitator of the patient’s wishes.

Regarding your New York Post article, there are anecdotal reports on BOTH SIDES of the issue given the complexities of the issue.  Consider, for example, these articles – including one chronicling the views of a physician who has faced his own bout with cancer and knows it will return.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/from-doctor-to-patient-to-assisted-suicide-advocate/389108/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-aid-in-dying-lapook/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/

 
Regarding your 2011 Current Oncology article, it entirely supports our current law – thank you for including it.  

1)  As the article points out about the international context, there have been oversight issues which is why our national law has meticulously addressed oversight mechanisms for PAS.

2) The article also points out the importance of palliative care – also an important addition and perhaps a better focus of your proposed bill.

3) Unfortunately, the article incorrectly calculates and you misstate the statistics.  First, the article refers to 17% of the 32% - which means 5%.  Second, the article has selected “the Flemish part of Belgium” which is 3 times higher than the Netherlands, meaning it is not a typical situation.  And third, the article states that it is consistent with previous research in which “25 of 1644 non-sudden deaths had been the result of euthanasia without explicit consent” in Belgium – BUT THIS IS ONLY 1.5%.  Given that the earlier article had a much larger sample, it is reasonable to assume that it is more accurate.

4) You will note that since that article, 4 US jurisdictions have researched the issue and chosen to pass a PAS bill (VT-2013, CA-2015, DC-2016, CO-2016) with voter support.

5)  In jurisdictions without PAS, patients are undertaking “Voluntary Refusal of Food and Fluids” (VRFF) as a means of ending their life, but as one article points out: “Patients may suffer because of the slow dying process following dehydration and starvation.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22038559

 
So let us proceed with actions that support individuals and their rights over their lives and deaths.  As a person faces death from a terminal illness, it should be up to them in concert with their family and physician, to determine how to die.  If you want to revise your bill to focus on palliative care, I would welcome such a revised bill that respects individual choice rather than government interference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Time and tide wait for no man".

You stated you wanted 24 hours to compose a reply on Sunday and I gave you 48 hours, and didn't start the vote on the bill until Tuesday. That you didn't consider it a sufficient priority on Monday or Tuesday is not my problem, but yours. Clearly the legislation just isn't that important to you.

Perhaps you should make better use of your time.

All I ask for is notification that you plan to proceed with the bill. I consider every bill high priority, I just sometimes lack the time to adequately put towards real researched analysis. I would love if you would PM me, asking me about my status on debate - considering we are the only two who are debating in this chamber, haha.

Anyways, I understand the frustration of not having people finish debate and wanting to get things done. I just ask that for an issue as sensitive as this, and one in which so many have spent a lot of effort into, we try to hear all sides, and make sure we are all Alerted.

If the Final Vote is to go on, I vote a Nay for the reasons and flaws with not only the bill but the arguments presented for it.

[Wisconsin+17]

I vote YEA.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yea

[Wisconsin+17]

With 3 votes in favor to 1 against, and 1 abstaining this passes.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Liberty, right?
*sighs heavily*

[diptheriadan]

Governor diptheriadan

[NeverAgain]

With 3 votes in favor to 1 against, this passes.

Has Spenstar resigned?