Death With Dignity Act [Debate open]

[Meeker]

Death With Dignity Act

Section 1: Atlasia bestows the right to physician-assisted suicide to patients diagnosed with a fatal disease. Physicians may not be persecuted for assisting in the suicide if there is consent from the patient and all other requirements are met.
Section 2: At least two witnesses must sign to acknowledge that such a deicision has been reached between patient and physician.
Section 3: A two week waiting period must exist between the time of the decision and the actual time of the physician-assisted suicide.

Sponsor: CultureKing

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Senator, I assume you based this piece of legislation around Oregon's 1994 Death with Dignity Act?

Whilst I am all for euthanasia, and that was proven in December 2007, when I proposed an euthanasia act (well it was really the incumbent Attorney-General's), which ultimatly became Northeastern law in the same month. So it's likely that I'll probably vote for it, however I have one notably query about it.

Why have you proposed a minimum of a 2 week waiting period? Was there any basis for your decision?

Thank You Senator.

[Хahar 🤔]

I assume the wiating period is if the patient wants to reconsider, though I'm not a big fan.

[CultureKing]

Senator, I assume you based this piece of legislation around Oregon's 1994 Death with Dignity Act?

Whilst I am all for euthanasia, and that was proven in December 2007, when I proposed an euthanasia act (well it was really the incumbent Attorney-General's), which ultimatly became Northeastern law in the same month. So it's likely that I'll probably vote for it, however I have one notably query about it.

Why have you proposed a minimum of a 2 week waiting period? Was there any basis for your decision?

Thank You Senator.

I feel that it is important that the patient needs to be quite sure of the decision before going through with the act, and as such the two weeks would give time to reconsider or solidify any thoughts (it should not be an of the moment type of thing). Though really the time period doesn't really matter, it could be a day or two instead of two weeks.

[Meeker]

Personally I'm not entirely sure two weeks is long enough for them to think about this... is that how long the Oregon law is?

[Sam Spade]

Naturally, I oppose this.

[Keystone Phil]

This will be vetoed.

[Хahar 🤔]

This will be vetoed.

Unless the Senate dallies long enough for a new President to come in. Remember MAS117's filibusters? Now picture it as a group thing.

[opebo]

Personally I'm not entirely sure two weeks is long enough for them to think about this... is that how long the Oregon law is?

Terminally ill people can often suffer a lot or lose the ability to act/communicate in a matter of days, so two weeks is far too long.

[Colin]

This is obviously unconstitutional as it currently stands. The Senate is not granted the right to regulate assisted suicides in the Constitution, as far as I can tell, and has, so far, been regulated on a regional basis. I cannot support a bill that is unconstitutional.

[Torie]

This is obviously unconstitutional as it currently stands. The Senate is not granted the right to regulate assisted suicides in the Constitution, as far as I can tell, and has, so far, been regulated on a regional basis. I cannot support a bill that is unconstitutional.

I find no such power there myself. The powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution appear to be surprisingly limited. By the way, what threads is it appropriate for citizens not in office to participate in, and which not?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is obviously unconstitutional as it currently stands. The Senate is not granted the right to regulate assisted suicides in the Constitution, as far as I can tell, and has, so far, been regulated on a regional basis. I cannot support a bill that is unconstitutional.

I find no such power there myself. The powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution appear to be surprisingly limited. By the way, what threads is it appropriate for citizens not in office to participate in, and which not?

Citizens can participate in all threads, but in this board, they can only vote if they are a Senator.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Unless the sponsor (or someone else), can make this constitutional or find some reason why this is constitutional, I ask my senators to motion to table

[CultureKing]

Unless the sponsor (or someone else), can make this constitutional or find some reason why this is constitutional, I ask my senators to motion to table

When I first proposed this legislation I was hoping that the Allignment with the territories act would pass and come into law, but seeing as it has failed this bill carries little weight (I meant for it to apply to DC and the territories and then be put on the ballot in the regions, but that hasn't worked out). I guess it could be passed in regards to DC and the territories but that really doesn't mean much.

[Colin]

Unless the sponsor (or someone else), can make this constitutional or find some reason why this is constitutional, I ask my senators to motion to table

When I first proposed this legislation I was hoping that the Allignment with the territories act would pass and come into law, but seeing as it has failed this bill carries little weight (I meant for it to apply to DC and the territories and then be put on the ballot in the regions, but that hasn't worked out). I guess it could be passed in regards to DC and the territories but that really doesn't mean much.

Unless a bill specifically states that it is applicable only in DC and the territories it is assumed, or at least has been in the Atlasian precedent, that it is trying to apply to the entire country and is thus unconstitutional.

[Verily]

Unless the sponsor (or someone else), can make this constitutional or find some reason why this is constitutional, I ask my senators to motion to table

When I first proposed this legislation I was hoping that the Allignment with the territories act would pass and come into law, but seeing as it has failed this bill carries little weight (I meant for it to apply to DC and the territories and then be put on the ballot in the regions, but that hasn't worked out). I guess it could be passed in regards to DC and the territories but that really doesn't mean much.

Unless a bill specifically states that it is applicable only in DC and the territories it is assumed, or at least has been in the Atlasian precedent, that it is trying to apply to the entire country and is thus unconstitutional.

Exactly. An incredibly idiotic system when the Regions do nothing, but there you go. An amendment to this bill to apply it only to DC and the territories would probably sail through, however.

[Colin]

Unless the sponsor (or someone else), can make this constitutional or find some reason why this is constitutional, I ask my senators to motion to table

When I first proposed this legislation I was hoping that the Allignment with the territories act would pass and come into law, but seeing as it has failed this bill carries little weight (I meant for it to apply to DC and the territories and then be put on the ballot in the regions, but that hasn't worked out). I guess it could be passed in regards to DC and the territories but that really doesn't mean much.

Unless a bill specifically states that it is applicable only in DC and the territories it is assumed, or at least has been in the Atlasian precedent, that it is trying to apply to the entire country and is thus unconstitutional.

Exactly. An incredibly idiotic system when the Regions do nothing, but there you go. An amendment to this bill to apply it only to DC and the territories would probably sail through, however.

Oh I agree completely but its the system we've been forced into using through a mixture of constitutional measures and court proceedings.

[CultureKing]

Any way I could argue that it is constitutional under section 5 clause 13 or 14 of the Constitution (powers granted to the senate)?:

"To promote the Public Health, by the conducting of researches, investigations, experiments, and demonstrations relating to the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of medical disorders and by assisting and fostering such research activities by public and private agencies."

"To protect the Public Health and commerce, by providing for the quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of individuals, animals and plants as needed to prevent the spread of contagious diseases."

...yeah I know it is a bit of a stretch.

[Colin]

Any way I could argue that it is constitutional under section 5 clause 13 or 14 of the Constitution (powers granted to the senate)?:

"To promote the Public Health, by the conducting of researches, investigations, experiments, and demonstrations relating to the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of medical disorders and by assisting and fostering such research activities by public and private agencies."

"To protect the Public Health and commerce, by providing for the quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of individuals, animals and plants as needed to prevent the spread of contagious diseases."

...yeah I know it is a bit of a stretch.

No, especially with the court we have. I wouldn't really want them to read into this provision too much since it would destroy the Atlasian tradition of trying to stick to what we actually wrote.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well if it were deemed a mass "experiment" or "demonstration" perhaps. I suspect someone into embryonic stem cell research was the man behind the curtain when  this was written. Cheers.

[CultureKing]

I kind of just want to try and pass it and see what the courts do...

[Ebowed]

The bill would be entirely constitutional if it applies to DC/federal territories, as mentioned earlier.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Speaking solely for myself, and not for the court, nor to bind my options if a case concerning this should reach the court while I am still there, clause 16 of the Powers of the Senate section, would seem to be the firmest constitutional basis for this bill:
"To provide for the humanitarian relief of the distress caused by unpredictable events of natural or man-made origin."

While the intent of that clause was to allow the government to provide disaster relief, the language might be interpreted as sufficiently broad as to encompass legalizing euthanasia.

As an aside, let me point out that repeal of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 [42 U.S.C. 14401 et seq.] would be a definitely constitutional way to deal with this issue at a Federal level.

[Meeker]

If no one has anything else to say, we'll move to vote on this legislation in twenty-four hours.

[Meeker]

We are now voting on final passage of this legislation. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Death With Dignity Act

Section 1: Atlasia bestows the right to physician-assisted suicide to patients diagnosed with a fatal disease. Physicians may not be persecuted for assisting in the suicide if there is consent from the patient and all other requirements are met.
Section 2: At least two witnesses must sign to acknowledge that such a deicision has been reached between patient and physician.
Section 3: A two week waiting period must exist between the time of the decision and the actual time of the physician-assisted suicide.