Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:14 pm
by Justosia » Sun Aug 29, 2021 5:25 pm
by The Python » Sun Aug 29, 2021 5:28 pm
Wallenburg wrote:"No euthanization process is 'completely painless'."
the operation is fast and free from extreme pain and/or agony, and the method of death is chosen by the patient,
by Daarwyrth » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:54 am
by The Order of Makai » Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:04 am
by Daarwyrth » Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:28 am
The Order of Makai wrote:"RIGHTWINGERS WILL OPPOSE THIS"
Well this is off to a good start.
Imagine being so unmanly (or unwomanly perhaps?) that you want to force the state to pay for your suicide. No, be a man and simply be stoned off your ass on opiods while awaiting the end instead.
by Tinhampton » Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:42 am
by Daarwyrth » Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:53 am
Tinhampton wrote:Smith: Daarwyrth can legalise assisted dying procedures right now, without Regulatory Superstate interference.
by Araraukar » Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:20 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Oinopa Ponton » Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:01 am
The Python wrote:A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
by Goobergunchia » Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:14 am
by Araraukar » Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:17 am
Oinopa Ponton wrote:The Hippocratic Oath forbids a medical professional from killing their patient
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Python » Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:20 pm
Oinopa Ponton wrote:COMMUNIQUÉ of the ÉMINENCES GRISES of the SUPREME SOVIET
of the SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF OINOPA PONTOI
Ανακοιθωμέν της Αποθρόνοι της Υπέρτατης Σοβιέτ
της Σοβιετικής Σοσιαλιστικής Δημοκρατίας του Οινόπα Ποντών
ΥΣΑ-I: While we are in support of the proposal in theory, an excerpt of the current proposal seems questionable in practice:The Python wrote:A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
The Hippocratic Oath forbids a medical professional from killing their patient: I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked. This is lamentable, and we understand the authors of the resolution prepared for this primary contingency by noting the ability for an okros-complying physician to "express a bona fide moral objection". However, the physician in question is still led to "direct patients to [...] euthanasia services". This is also forbidden by the oath, which proceeds: I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan. Should it truly be mandatory for a physician to betray their oath in such a way?
But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:03 pm
The Order of Makai wrote:"RIGHTWINGERS WILL OPPOSE THIS"
Well this is off to a good start.
Imagine being so unmanly (or unwomanly perhaps?) that you want to force the state to pay for your suicide. No, be a man and simply be stoned off your ass on opiods while awaiting the end instead.
by Comfed » Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:09 pm
The General Assembly,
Resolving that individuals should have the legal right to end their lives if they are in agony from an incurable illness,
Believing that any possible dangers resulting from a "slippery slope" in legalising euthanasia do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms,
Noting that it is thus necessary to establish pro-euthanasia measures in the General Assembly, enacts as follows:
- In this resolution, “euthanasia” is the killing of a patient, when:
- the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
- the operation is fast and free from extreme pain and/or agony, and the method of death is chosen by the patient, So, if I wanted to be shot into space and then be sent into a volcano, the state would have to give it to me? Scrap the choice of death part.
- the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and A better word might be "unbearable" and also maybe state that this is determined by the patient. Also, you may want to add something about their death being in the foreseeable future.
- a medical professional assists in the operation.
- Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients, at government expense "at government expense" is redundant. In areas where euthanasia services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients seeking euthanasia residing in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services.
- No member nations may discriminate against euthanasia recipients, the families thereof, or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, including but not limited to discrimination in tax. This clause needs a lot of work.
- No person, or member nation, may coerce a patient to seek euthanasia.
- A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
Co-authored by [nation=long]Imperium Anglorum[/nation]
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:57 am
Comfed wrote:The General Assembly,
Resolving that individuals should have the legal right to end their lives if they are in agony from an incurable illness,
Believing that any possible dangers resulting from a "slippery slope" in legalising euthanasia do not outweigh the right to end one's life on one's own terms,
Noting that it is thus necessary to establish pro-euthanasia measures in the General Assembly, enacts as follows:
- In this resolution, “euthanasia” is the killing of a patient, when:
- the patient has provided verifiable informed consent to the operation,
- the operation is fast and free from extreme pain and/or agony, and the method of death is chosen by the patient, So, if I wanted to be shot into space and then be sent into a volcano, the state would have to give it to me? Scrap the choice of death part.
- the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and A better word might be "unbearable" and also maybe state that this is determined by the patient. Also, you may want to add something about their death being in the foreseeable future.
- a medical professional assists in the operation.
- Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients, at government expense "at government expense" is redundant. In areas where euthanasia services are not locally accessible, member nations must arrange and pay for patients seeking euthanasia residing in those areas, to travel to a clinic that provides euthanasia services.
- No member nations may discriminate against euthanasia recipients, the families thereof, or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, including but not limited to discrimination in tax. This clause needs a lot of work.
- No person, or member nation, may coerce a patient to seek euthanasia.
- A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
Co-authored by [nation=long]Imperium Anglorum[/nation]
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Python » Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:59 pm
Comfed wrote:the method of death is chosen by the patient, So, if I wanted to be shot into space and then be sent into a volcano, the state would have to give it to me? Scrap the choice of death part.
Comfed wrote:the patient has a terminal illness or an incurable illness that results in extreme pain and/or agony, and A better word might be "unbearable" and also maybe state that this is determined by the patient. Also, you may want to add something about their death being in the foreseeable future.
Comfed wrote:Member nations must provide free euthanasia services to patients, at government expense "at government expense" is redundant.
Comfed wrote:No member nations may discriminate against euthanasia recipients, the families thereof, or medical professionals aiding in euthanasia, including but not limited to discrimination in tax. This clause needs a lot of work.
by The Python » Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:05 pm
No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:
- imposing higher taxes on those who receive or assist in euthanasia,
- prosecuting persons who receive or assist in euthanasia,
- fail to provide equal protection before the law to said persons,
- implement policies which restrict access to euthanasia.
by Barfleur » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:42 pm
by Nyxonia » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:10 pm
by Qvait » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:35 pm
The Python wrote:3 . No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:
The Python wrote:5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
by Bears Armed » Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:51 am
Qvait wrote:Ambassador Sunna Jóhannsdóttir: The Valkyrian Republic supports a resolution mandating access to euthanasia. However, we have a few issues with the proposal at hand.The Python wrote:3 . No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:
"First, we believe there to be a grammatical error in the above provision, which should state 'No member nation...' instead of the plural form."The Python wrote:5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
"Second, we oppose the inclusion of the above provision, which only serves to delay providing euthanasia services to qualifying patients. Furthermore, licensed medical professionals should not be imposing their preconceived opinions on patients and should do the job that they signed up for, which is to provide medical care and services to their patients."
by The Python » Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:29 pm
Nyxonia wrote:I think that agony from an incurable illness is too narrow. There are other conditions where euthanasia should be valid. For example, if the person was in a crippling condition that has severely compromised their quality of life. They may not be in pain but maybe they are a quadrapalegic . Or what about someone who has an inoperable brain tumor (or something like ALS) where they provide prior informed-consent?
So maybe under 1. iii. you add those caveats.
For example; I have a standing order that if I am to suffer a condition that makes me incapable of mental functioning and conscious awareness (the things that make me, me) I do not want my life extended.
As a mental turnip I might not be in pain, but that is no existence
Qvait wrote:The Python wrote:3 . No member nations may discriminate against anyone who receives or assists in euthanasia in ways including but not limited to:
"First, we believe there to be a grammatical error in the above provision, which should state 'No member nation...' instead of the plural form."
Qvait wrote:The Python wrote:5. A medical professional that expresses a bona fide moral objection against euthanasia may not be forced to perform euthanasia, as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services.
"Second, we oppose the inclusion of the above provision, which only serves to delay providing euthanasia services to qualifying patients. Furthermore, licensed medical professionals should not be imposing their preconceived opinions on patients and should do the job that they signed up for, which is to provide medical care and services to their patients."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement