S.20.1-11: The Southern Euthanasia Ban of 2020 (Statute)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The Southern Euthanasia Ban of 2020

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 undesirables in the past.

Be it resolved by the Chamber of Delegates:

Euthanasia is hereby banned throughout the South. No doctor or nurse may apply treatment with the primary intent of killing their patient. Doctors or nurses found liable for euthanasia, including passive euthanasia, shall be fined $50,000 for the first offense, and stripped of their license on the second offense. Further offenses will result in prosecution for murder in the first degree.

Sponsor: Governor West_Midlander, TimTurner

[reagente]

The Southern Euthanasia Ban of 2020

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 undesirables in the past.

Be it resolved by the Chamber of Delegates:

Euthanasia is hereby banned throughout the South. No doctor or nurse may apply treatment with the primary intent of killing their patient. Doctors or nurses found liable for euthanasia, including passive euthanasia, shall be fined $50,000 for the first offense, and stripped of their license on the second offense. Further offenses will result in prosecution for murder in the first degree.

Sponsor: Governor West_Midlander, TimTurner

How are doctors or nurses found liable? Is it incumbent on a family member to bring a civil suit, or is there going to be some sort of supervisory board that acts as judge and jury here?

[Senator-elect Spark]

I support this legislation

[West_Midlander]

How are doctors or nurses found liable? Is it incumbent on a family member to bring a civil suit, or is there going to be some sort of supervisory board that acts as judge and jury here?

In most cases, euthanasia would probably take place with the family's consent. If that was not the case then the physician or nurse is a classic 'angel of mercy' killer and, I believe, would be prosecuted under current murder law.

I would think the prosecution would be carried out by local authorities or the regional Attorney General's office. If the Delegates think which has jurisdiction needs to be clarified or that a board is necessary for this law, then an amendment to that effect is appropriate.

[Former President tack50]

Assuming the purpose of this bill is a reaction to some arguably badly applied euthanasia treatments, why go with a blanket ban? That seems excessive.

If that is not the purpose, I still cannot agree with this bill. Someone who is in excruciating pain and having a terminal illness is probably better off dying sooner with peace of mind rather than pointlessly elongating the pain.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I also oppose this. If we wanted to ban it without some form of written consent form from either the patient or, if they are not in sound mind, their legal guardian, then I could support this, but a blanket ban is far, FAR too restrictive.

[West_Midlander]

I support this legislation as written, however, if there is significant sentiment among the Delegates to amend this bill then the Delegates should do so. If the Delegates wish to amend this bill, instead, to restrict euthanasia, I would sign that legislation.

Ultimately, the changes are up to the members of this Chamber:

If there is not sufficient sentiment to pass a full-ban through this chamber I would be willing to sign a bill that renames the law and outlaws active euthanasia, allowing only passive euthanasia. I would like to see the amended bill, if amendment is pursued, maintain the bill's punishments, at least to a large extent, for the application of active euthanasia.

I would also like to have two doctors' written permission certifying that the patient has virtually no chance of recovery, is in serious pain even with the use of medication or chooses not to take medication, and is sound of mind in pursuing passive euthanasia. Above all, doctors should have to certify that patients have agreed (in a room, alone) that they are not being pressured into this decision by anyone else (ie. by family), or for reasons outside of themselves (ie. monetary).

An amended bill does not have to include all of these and may include other sections or Articles: that is up to the Delegates of this body.

I would prefer to sign a full-ban but if there is not enough sentiment for it, I am open to having this bill amended.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Motion for a vote.

[Former President tack50]

For what's worth, if anyone is interested I tried to pass an euthanasia legalization bill back in July. It passed the Senate 4-1 but failed in the House 3-4.

If the South wants to "copy my homework", feel free to do so

Senate debate: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=323763.0

House Debate: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=326933.0

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

objecting to the motion. I'll be writing an amendment tonight to make this a partial ban, with similar restrictions as to what the Governor proposed.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Sorry I'm a bit late on this, got caught up with other stuff today.

The Southern Euthanasia Ban of 2020

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 undesirables in the past.

Be it resolved by the Chamber of Delegates:

Euthanasia is hereby banned throughout the South except under the following circumstances:
-With written certification from two Doctors, stating that the patient has negligible chance of recovery and is in pain.
-With a written consent form from the patient if they are in sound mind, or their legal guardian if they are not, that certifies that the patient is not being pressured into the decision by outside forces.
-Both of the circumstances listed above must occur before euthanasia is administered.
 Doctors or nurses found liable for euthanasia, including passive euthanasia outside of the circumstances listed above shall be fined $50,000 for the first offense, and stripped of their license on the second offense. Further offenses will result in prosecution for murder in the first degree.

I don't see a reason to differentiate between passive and active. If the patient isn't being kept alive by medicine or medical equipment, then why not simply get a DNR order? If they're truly suffering and want the pain to end, I see no reason that we should delay it.

What does it say?
It says "kill me". Over and over again, "kill me".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

the objection is heard, the motion fails.

[reagente]

Has the amendment been adopted due to lack of objection?

If so, I motion for a final vote.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Has the amendment been adopted due to lack of objection?

If so, I motion for a final vote.

I second

[PragmaticPopulist]

Final Vote. 48 hours.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Nay

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Aye

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye (enthusiastically)

[reagente]

Aye (reluctantly)

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

abstain

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

3 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absentation. This bill passes.

[West_Midlander]

3 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absentation. This bill passes.

X West_Midlander