[Suggestion] Split euthanasia up

[IKTeam]

My suggestion is to split and differentiate between different types of euthanasia in both issues and policies.

We currently have a single "Euthanasia" policy, however I believe it's not specific enough, and while having it usually implies you have both active and passive euthanasia allowed, I believe using two policies for euthanasia would be better.

I currently see it like "No immigration" and "No emigration" policies. While they could be merged into something like "closed border", they aren't. So there's a reason euthanasia should split up, I believe.

Since usually having active euthanasia implies passive euthanasia is allowed as well, it could probably work in one of these ways:
- "passive euthanasia" and "active euthanasia" would be different policies and you could have both, just one of them, or none
- "passive euthanasia" and "full euthanasia", but you can only have one of them (having first one implies you have passive euthanasia, having the second one implies you have both passive and active euthanasia)

I haven't seen this suggestion posted before. But I believe it would allow some nations to point out that they, for example, only allow passive and not active euthanasia.

[Frisbeeteria]

Policies are the province of the Issue Editors, not the general Admin staff. Moved to Got Issues.

[Outer Sparta]

My suggestion is to split and differentiate between different types of euthanasia in both issues and policies.

We currently have a single "Euthanasia" policy, however I believe it's not specific enough, and while having it usually implies you have both active and passive euthanasia allowed, I believe using two policies for euthanasia would be better.

I currently see it like "No immigration" and "No emigration" policies. While they could be merged into something like "closed border", they aren't. So there's a reason euthanasia should split up, I believe.

Since usually having active euthanasia implies passive euthanasia is allowed as well, it could probably work in one of these ways:
- "passive euthanasia" and "active euthanasia" would be different policies and you could have both, just one of them, or none
- "passive euthanasia" and "full euthanasia", but you can only have one of them (having first one implies you have passive euthanasia, having the second one implies you have both passive and active euthanasia)

I haven't seen this suggestion posted before. But I believe it would allow some nations to point out that they, for example, only allow passive and not active euthanasia.

How would this be implemented with the current set of issues we have for euthanasia?

[Verdant Haven]

What are you defining as passive versus active euthanasia? I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing beyond what already exists.

At present there is the Euthanasia policy, which represents passively permitting people to end their lives if they wish, and there is the Geronticide policy, with which the government actively terminates the lives of the elderly. Nations can have either, both, or neither of these policies, depending on their choices. Both are distinct from and unrelated to the idea of killing people for judicial reasons, which is covered by the Capital Punishment policy.

[Terrabod]

What are you defining as passive versus active euthanasia? I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing beyond what already exists.

In medical terms, passive euthanasia is where doctors deliberately do nothing to prevent a patient's death (letting a patient die e.g. by withholding medicine, turning off life support, not resuscitating a patient if they die) whereas active euthanasia is deliberately doing something to cause the death of a patient (killing the patient e.g. by giving them an overdose of morphine). Note that both are done with the patient's consent (or the consent of a proxy if the patient does not have capacity) but many countries find passive euthanasia more palatable than active euthanasia. In fact, whereas active euthanasia is widely prohibited, there are quite a few countries where passive euthanasia is legal as long as informed consent is received.

Note that I don't see how such a distinction is useful in terms of tracking decisions, at least with the issues we have on the topic at the moment. At present, the Euthanasia policy covers both of the above as the patient (or a proxy, I guess) is consenting.

[Trotterdam]

In fact, whereas active euthanasia is widely prohibited, there are quite a few countries where passive euthanasia is legal as long as informed consent is received.

There are currently no issues about implementing this nuance, but you could write one if you wish.

[Terrabod]

There are currently no issues about implementing this nuance, but you could write one if you wish.

Something to keep in mind, thanks; although I think even with this nuance there wouldn't be a need for more detailed tracking than the existing Euthanasia policy.