S15: Euthanasia Ban Repeal Act (Passed)

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: JustinTimeCuber
Co-sponsor: fhtagn

I now open the floor for debate.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I am steadfastly opposed to euthanasia and support existing law on the matter.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I believe it's immoral to force people to live out a few more weeks if a) they are going to die almost certainly and b) it would be very painful to continue living.

Also, something something freedom something murica.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't believe it's fair for someone to arrange for their death via this procedure. What if there are people who depend on them? What will they do? To frame it as a freedom issue misses the point. We have obligations in society; to family, to friends, to many. This law just makes it easier for people unhappy with their predicament to remove themselves from the world and quite potentially throw loved ones to the wolves.

[fhtagn]

I believe it's immoral to force people to live out a few more weeks if a) they are going to die almost certainly and b) it would be very painful to continue living.

Also, something something freedom something murica.

^ this

If there are safeguards in place to ensure that the person being euthanized is of sound mind to make that decision, and there is a medical diagnosis confirming their terminal condition, it makes no sense to deny them that right.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I don't believe it's fair for someone to arrange for their death via this procedure. What if there are people who depend on them? What will they do? To frame it as a freedom issue misses the point. We have obligations in society; to family, to friends, to many. This law just makes it easier for people unhappy with their predicament to remove themselves from the world and quite potentially throw loved ones to the wolves.

As fhtagn said, there's a long process that makes it so that such a thing wouldn't and doesn't happen.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't believe it's fair for someone to arrange for their death via this procedure. What if there are people who depend on them? What will they do? To frame it as a freedom issue misses the point. We have obligations in society; to family, to friends, to many. This law just makes it easier for people unhappy with their predicament to remove themselves from the world and quite potentially throw loved ones to the wolves.

As fhtagn said, there's a long process that makes it so that such a thing wouldn't and doesn't happen.

I would strongly prefer if you had more than just the person who wants to consider assisted dying in the hands of the decision. Family deserves some say.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I don't believe it's fair for someone to arrange for their death via this procedure. What if there are people who depend on them? What will they do? To frame it as a freedom issue misses the point. We have obligations in society; to family, to friends, to many. This law just makes it easier for people unhappy with their predicament to remove themselves from the world and quite potentially throw loved ones to the wolves.

As fhtagn said, there's a long process that makes it so that such a thing wouldn't and doesn't happen.

I would strongly prefer if you had more than just the person who wants to consider assisted dying in the hands of the decision. Family deserves some say.

They do have a say. The process is way longer and more thought out than

Patient: "doc can you get me the euthanasia drug?"
Doctor: "k"

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't believe it's fair for someone to arrange for their death via this procedure. What if there are people who depend on them? What will they do? To frame it as a freedom issue misses the point. We have obligations in society; to family, to friends, to many. This law just makes it easier for people unhappy with their predicament to remove themselves from the world and quite potentially throw loved ones to the wolves.

As fhtagn said, there's a long process that makes it so that such a thing wouldn't and doesn't happen.

I would strongly prefer if you had more than just the person who wants to consider assisted dying in the hands of the decision. Family deserves some say.

They do have a say. The process is way longer and more thought out than

Patient: "doc can you get me the euthanasia drug?"
Doctor: "k"

If we are going to have assisted dying, the fairest way of doing it is requiring that a sizable amount of the immediate family of said person agrees with said decision.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I don't believe it's fair for someone to arrange for their death via this procedure. What if there are people who depend on them? What will they do? To frame it as a freedom issue misses the point. We have obligations in society; to family, to friends, to many. This law just makes it easier for people unhappy with their predicament to remove themselves from the world and quite potentially throw loved ones to the wolves.

As fhtagn said, there's a long process that makes it so that such a thing wouldn't and doesn't happen.

I would strongly prefer if you had more than just the person who wants to consider assisted dying in the hands of the decision. Family deserves some say.

They do have a say. The process is way longer and more thought out than

Patient: "doc can you get me the euthanasia drug?"
Doctor: "k"

If we are going to have assisted dying, the fairest way of doing it is requiring that a sizable amount of the immediate family of said person agrees with said decision.

In areas with legal euthanasia, that is almost always taken into consideration, except in possibly a few really abnormal circumstances.

[fhtagn]

Ultimately, as with any medical procedure, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to require a portion of the immediate family to consent to this. You wouldn't ask that for other medical procedures.

That being said, legal euthanasia in most cases covers making sure the family is aware of the decision in part of the "is this person of sound mind to make this decision?" argument. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ultimately, as with any medical procedure, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to require a portion of the immediate family to consent to this. You wouldn't ask that for other medical procedures.

That being said, legal euthanasia in most cases covers making sure the family is aware of the decision in part of the "is this person of sound mind to make this decision?" argument. 

I think it's fair because euthanasia is irreversible. Once it's done it's done, and you can't ever said person ever again in this life. This isn't a normal medical procedure, it concerns life and death in a way very few others do. Notification isn't enough.

[Vern]

I am on the fence on this issue. I understand wanting to allow a person to do this so they can end the pain. But I have seen it where someone was "dying" and the doctors told them they only had a few months or day to live to end up making a full recovery and live a long happy life. I feel like people who are going through something like that aren't really in the right state of mind, because they will be making a decsion out of fear or despair.

Just my 2 cents..

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I am on the fence on this issue. I understand wanting to allow a person to do this so they can end the pain. But I have seen it where someone was "dying" and the doctors told them they only had a few months or day to live to end up making a full recovery and live a long happy life. I feel like people who are going through something like that aren't really in the right state of mind, because they will be making a decsion out of fear or despair.

Just my 2 cents..

I'm not in favor of euthanasia being legal. I am of the opinion in general that if euthanasia has to be legal though, it's unhealthy for society for it to be legal for someone to do so in a way that might harm dependents, and that would cause undue division and undue harm within their families after the fact. To quote Disney movie Lilo and Stitch: 'Ohana means family. Family never gets left behind'.

[ZuWo]

(weighing in from the sidelines)

I'm with Tim Turner on this issue but I realize the majority of the Legislature is likely in favor of liberalizing our euthanasia laws.

So if you support legalization please provide safeguards which make sure that a) no one is euthanized against their will, b) euthanasia will not be practiced on minors and c) it affects terminally ill patients only.

[JustinTimeCuber]

That would be covered by the states. This law doesn't  legalize euthanasia region-wide, but rather overturns the regional ban.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That would be covered by the states. This law doesn't  legalize euthanasia region-wide, but rather overturns the regional ban.

If there is no regional ban, then how is it not legal? What's the difference?

[ZuWo]

That would be covered by the states. This law doesn't  legalize euthanasia region-wide, but rather overturns the regional ban.

That raises another interesting question: Within the context of Atlasia, are "states" recognized as political entities with their own law-making powers and how far do their responsibilities go?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

[West_Midlander]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

EDIT: Also wanted to say, I think there should be reasonable safeguards. I agree with ZuWo that euthanasia should only be legal for adults that are terminally ill, with their express consent. I also think, perhaps two doctors would have to agree that recovery is extremely unlikely and two psychiatrists have to determine the patient is mentally fit to make the decision.

[JustinTimeCuber]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

EDIT: Also wanted to say, I think there should be reasonable safeguards. I agree with ZuWo that euthanasia should only be legal for adults that are terminally ill, with their express consent. I also think, perhaps two doctors would have to agree that recovery is extremely unlikely and two psychiatrists have to determine the patient is mentally fit to make the decision.

Those safeguards are in the Federal law.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think we should adopt a stricter standard than Federal law. Hence why I think we need some sort of family consent first.

[West_Midlander]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

EDIT: Also wanted to say, I think there should be reasonable safeguards. I agree with ZuWo that euthanasia should only be legal for adults that are terminally ill, with their express consent. I also think, perhaps two doctors would have to agree that recovery is extremely unlikely and two psychiatrists have to determine the patient is mentally fit to make the decision.

Those safeguards are in the Federal law.

Are all those in the law, including two doctors and two psychiatrists' approval?

[JustinTimeCuber]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

EDIT: Also wanted to say, I think there should be reasonable safeguards. I agree with ZuWo that euthanasia should only be legal for adults that are terminally ill, with their express consent. I also think, perhaps two doctors would have to agree that recovery is extremely unlikely and two psychiatrists have to determine the patient is mentally fit to make the decision.

Those safeguards are in the Federal law.

Are all those in the law, including two doctors and two psychiatrists' approval?

I'll find the law tonight but that's about how I remember it.