by Studly Penguins » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:11 am
by Absolvability » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:14 am
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:49 am
by Grand Europic States » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:58 am
Studly Penguins wrote:allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.
Studly Penguins wrote:a) “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months;
by Absolvability » Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:02 am
by Aegara » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:01 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:30 am
by SilentScope4 » Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:10 pm
The patient must also be mentally competent and possess the ability to make and communicate Health-Care decisions to their doctors.
by Tanaara » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:02 pm
by Absolvability » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:47 pm
Silentscope4 wrote:In many cultures, anyone who wants to let themselves die must be mentally incompetent. So, well, you might want to fix this loophole.
Silentscope4 wrote:If you changed it to mandate, then I would be against on national soverignity grounds, but at least the resolution would have done something. As it stands, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:"...[It] is my opinion that the World Assembly is not the proper venue to decide euthanasia, or assisted suicide legislation. It is a hot-button issue for many different reasons unique to each nation.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Would this practice not be denying religious states their right to self-determination?
Glen-Rhodes wrote:We must take in to account what many deem the central creed of their religion: the value of life.
by Studly Penguins » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:54 pm
Absolvability wrote:I love this proposal. The Rogue Nation already allows its terminally-ill patients this last convenience and we believe it would be an excellent addition to rights granted internationally.
Off the bat, I can't say as I see anything wrong with it, though I'll obviously wait and see what others have to point out.
More as a topic for discussion, rather than a suggestion just yet, what of people who are not mentally capable (according to this proposal,) of making such a decision for themselves? Many illnesses that would fall into this category effect mind and body and, provided there is some pre-existing will or something that states their desire to end their suffering should such an unfortunate thing happen, I believe they should be entitled to a dignified death as well.
by Studly Penguins » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:56 pm
Grand Europic States wrote:Good luck with this, you're gonna have a hard time getting support for it.
At the moment I can spot several problems with the draft.Studly Penguins wrote:allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.
By the time that a terminally ill person only has six months left, they may not be able to self-administer. Remember, many terminally ill people have undergone treatment that has awful side effects. I would recommend changing this to allow licensed medical professionals to administer, I would also suggest allowing those close to the patient to be able to administer because often the patient may want to end it in a place that is special to them with only close friends and family present. Obviously, in both cases all other legalities, such as the requirement for the documented evidence and the agreement of two other doctors, would still apply.Studly Penguins wrote:a) “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months;
I have a problem with the six month bit. Patients with terminal illnesses that affect their memory and sanity would often be unable to use this proposal because by the time they only had six months left the illness would have had such an effect as to render them not sound of mind. One of the most common reasons for a patient to want to end their lives is that they don't want to have an undignified end where they don't even recognise their spouse or children. I think you should drop the six month requirement and let all terminally ill patients end their lives whenever it suits them.
I hope this proposal does succeed, but I somehow doubt it will. Good luck with it anyway though.
Yours,
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:11 pm
Absolvability wrote:Should religion have any say in matters such as this? We're discussing morality. Morality is universal. If religion were ever an accurate description of morality I suspect there wouldn't be so damned many of them.
by Biteme » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:12 pm
Studly Penguins wrote:Human Rights"/"Significant
Dignified End-of-Life Choices
To the People of this Body Assembled:
UNSETTLED by the number of people with terminal illness with no dignified and legal means to choose to end their needless pain and suffering;
by Kevorkania » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:38 pm
by Grand Europic States » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:40 pm
Biteme wrote:Define a 'dignified' death in a way people will generally accept.
Biteme wrote:such policies end up leading to abuses and cause shifts from a mentality of saving patients and doing no harm to a more utilitarian paradigm. Insurance companies will increasingly refuse to fund care to someone who they determine are 'needlessly' suffering and should have a 'dignified' death. No, such a proposal has nothing positive about it and I will certainly vote against it, should it make it that far.
by Absolvability » Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:08 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:So, I will simply say the following. If you ask me if I think religion should be considered in the greater scheme of government, I would most likely give a resounding "no". But, if you ask me if I think religion should be considered when formulating euthanasia legislation, I would have to reluctantly say "yes".
Glen-Rhodes wrote:But, if you ask me if I think religion should be considered when formulating euthanasia legislation, I would have to reluctantly say "yes".
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:01 pm
by Absolvability » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:25 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:In addendum, I'm not advocating the consideration of religion whenever the establishment decides to assert itself. I think we are able to judge when religion plays an important factor, and that it when the people themselves have asserted it as an important factor.
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Leave it up to the separate nations to decide if assisted suicide is legal or illegal.
by Tiesabre » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:49 pm
by Absolvability » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:18 pm
by Studly Penguins » Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:40 pm
Absolvability wrote:Really, good Ambassador, if you don't feel the need to explain what about this proposal makes it inherently immoral or insane, I don't see why we should consider radical to be a bad thing.
Furthermore, I doubt the author of this proposal ever expected to gain support from an Inquisition, new or old.
by SilentScope4 » Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:55 pm
See, I disagree. It seems that this Assembly is only willing to engage matters of a clearly black or white nature. Nobody wants to admit anything is gray. Nobody wants to admit that sometimes the answer isn't to prohibit or proliferate... sometimes it is just to regulate. To manage things humanely, and in moderation. This is not fence-sitting, Ambassadors, this is wisdom.
Anyways back on topic, all we are trying to do is set a standard or boundaries if you will the right of people to determine the way in which they exit the "world". We have no wish to MANDATE euthanasia but seek to guarantee ones right to do that if they wish.
by Bears Armed » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:01 am
by Studly Penguins » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:06 am
MANDATING all WA Nations allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Ice States
Advertisement