Bears Armed wrote:OOC post
1./ My apologies for not being here earlier: RL problems, now mostly more-or-less resolved, got in the way.
2./ I'm going to re-read that section carefully, within the next 2-3 days, to confirm that it doesn't contravene 'Legal Competence'.
3./ During the same period of time I intend to re-draft (from memory: unfortunately my old notes on this topic have been misplaced) a clause that I originally thought of around the time that I was drafting 299, and planned to include in a proposal like this, establishing basic guidelines about how guardians can be chosen and limiting governments' rights to replace them with their own nominees (but still requiring the state to provide guardianship if the other methods fail). I'll post it in this thread, for you to use if you want.
That would be awesome! I’d love to see a different basis, it’s always good to see how a different brain approaches similar topics.
Jaffalonia wrote:We think "best interests" is a very subjective phrase to include in legislation (9b). The two medical professionals in a heavily anti-science state could go against the best interests of the ward in allegiance to the state's anti-scienceness. Additionally, a religious ward may refuse a treatment that is not in the best interest of their physical health, but in the best interests of their mental health and spirituality.
Also, Jaffalonia requests that section 9 also has a subsection about intelligence in addition to understanding. Understanding can be limited to the decision and situation that the ward is in, while intelligence can result in broader thoughts about life after the consent regarding a particular decision.
The subjectivity of the term is a fair criticism. What is viewed as ‘in a person’s best interests’ will change from culture to culture and time to time. One culture may view euthanasia as overall in a person’s best interests, while another may view invasive medical intervention as more beneficial in the same circumstances. I’ve left it vague as an acknowledgement that the concept of ‘best interest’ is a topic best defined by individual nations and cultures, as whatever I come up with will likely force someone to do something they disagree with (discounting extraordinarily harmful practices such as torture etc). Having said that, it might be appropriate to define it a little more by mandating nations take into account physical, mental, social, emotional factors etc. something for the next draft I think.
Regarding section 9, I respectfully disagree. The clause mandates that a person be able to understand the risks and consequences of their decision. I see no limit in the clause on how far in the future those consequences may be. I don’t see how adding the word intelligence will add any extra clarity than that already there. Understanding is not limited to the short term.
On re-reading clause 9, I’ve noticed I’ve omitted to include the ability to communicate one’s consent. I will rectify this in the next draft.