S15: Euthanasia Ban Repeal Act (Passed)

[fhtagn]

*crickets chirping*

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. NeverAgain (L-VA)

[West_Midlander]

Looks good, I'll vote in favor of the repeal.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Does anyone have anything else to add, or else I'll call for a final vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think it would be good to add an amendment that requires some sort of familial consent.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason I think this amendment is a good idea is that, since it's clear we will legalize it, we do so in a way that will minimize the chance that you have situations that divide families. Euthanasia is not to be taken lightly and if the family is that heavily divided on whether the procedure needs to be done, it definitely shouldn't happen at all. Keeping families together and minimizing discord within them is paramount.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

[Vern]

I don't like this at all. (my two cents) lol

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

[West_Midlander]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

Didn't think of this.

[Vern]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

But the same could be said about the patient's mental state. They, themselves, aren't in their right mind. The could make a decision out of fear or whatnot. When someone is told they only have a few months or so to live, that messes with the mind. Also, I've seen and heard of a lot of cases where someone was told they only have a few months to live, to end up making a full recovery. I think this just opens the door for people to make decision about killing themselves out of fear.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

But the same could be said about the patient's mental state. They, themselves, aren't in their right mind. The could make a decision out of fear or whatnot. When someone is told they only have a few months or so to live, that messes with the mind. Also, I've seen and heard of a lot of cases where someone was told they only have a few months to live, to end up making a full recovery. I think this just opens the door for people to make decision about killing themselves out of fear.

Under federal Atlasian law, there is a process set up to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen. You can't just tell your doctor, "get me the euthanasia pill".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

The possibilities you raise might seem possible in some limited, not so common cases, but we need to weigh it against the alternative, which is people more or less arranging themselves to die in some cases and their families not wanting that to be done, by and large. That sort of thing can cause tensions, especially if you have some family members who supported said people undergoing the euthanasia procedure (which is always a possibility and is going to be the case most of the time) and there is division between said family members and the rest of their kin. Let's face it, some sort of tension stemming from this is inevitable. It's better for Southern families for us to require some sort of consensus before it goes ahead, because whatever damage is caused by having to decide the future of a family member, what comes after someone arranging for their death and getting that done, against the wishes of a divided family is bound to be worse, potentially much worse.

[West_Midlander]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

But the same could be said about the patient's mental state. They, themselves, aren't in their right mind. The could make a decision out of fear or whatnot. When someone is told they only have a few months or so to live, that messes with the mind. Also, I've seen and heard of a lot of cases where someone was told they only have a few months to live, to end up making a full recovery. I think this just opens the door for people to make decision about killing themselves out of fear.

Valid point. Also: Especially with the likely mounting cost of treatment (given chronic/serious conditions that would introduce euthanasia to the situation), in these scenarios, without Single Payer, citizens may feel pressured to end their lives to not be a strain on the family.

[Vern]

I've been thinking on this. And I understand wanting to allow the patient to end their suffering. That is why I am willing to support this, if and only if, we pass this.


[quote]

The Southern Euthanasia Bill

Section One - Euthanasia Ban Repeal

i. The Euthanasia Ban is hereby repealed.

Section Two - Defining of Euthanasia

i. Euthanasia is the process of allowing a patient who is terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, is an adult (18 or over) resident of the Southern Region, mentally competent at the time of request, and must make voluntary requests, without coercion, about the subject, to take their lives with the assistance of a physician.


Section Three - Process of Euthanasia

i. The process of euthanasia will only start if one of the two requirements are met.

   a. The patient has stated in their will that if terminally ill with less than 6 months to live that they want the process of euthanasia to be preformed.

   b. If not stated in their will, then the patient, plus their spouse or next of kin have to be in agreement to start the process of euthanasia. The patient then has to have two doctors to sign that the patient meets all of the qualifications stated in section two.

ii. All patients will be informed of all the options including palliative and hospice care. The patient may change their mind at any time and rescind the request. The patient is also strongly encouraged to talk to their families and loved ones.

iii. There is a 15 day waiting period between the first oral request and a written request and a 48 hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the prescription.

Section Four - Death Process and Afterwords

i. Pentobarbital will be the drug of use of which will be administered by the patients residing physician.

ii. There must be two physicians present at the process with one being he presiding physician.

iii. The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which must list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death

[West_Midlander]

I've been thinking on this. And I understand wanting to allow the patient to end their suffering. That is why I am willing to support this, if and only if, we pass this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hm. It makes the idea of immediate family agreement a bit more palatable to reduce it to spouse or next of kin. We could amend the bill to add the clauses suggested by Delegate Vern (in bold), if Delegate JustinTimeCuber is OK with them.

[fhtagn]

I've been thinking on this. And I understand wanting to allow the patient to end their suffering. That is why I am willing to support this, if and only if, we pass this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hm. It makes the idea of immediate family agreement a bit more palatable to reduce it to spouse or next of kin. We could amend the bill to add the clauses suggested by Delegate Vern (in bold), if Delegate JustinTimeCuber is OK with them.

I think this is a fair compromise.

[West_Midlander]

I've been thinking on this. And I understand wanting to allow the patient to end their suffering. That is why I am willing to support this, if and only if, we pass this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Officially seconding that we add the text in bold to the amendment.

[fhtagn]

Bringing a 72 hour vote on the proposed amendment.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Abstain

[Vern]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Aye