We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Euthansia Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2824
Description[?]:
| It is morally unacceptable to expect a treating Doctor to authorise to the unnatural death of their patient. It goes against the Hippocratic Oath they all swore when starting their careers. It is also very difficult to establish if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define. I propose that the courts take into account the principle of 'double effect', a set of ethical criteria for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act (for example, relieving a terminally ill patient's pain) will also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (for example, the patient's death) should a medical professional ever be brought to court. Furthermore, appropriate drug management (passive euthansia) will not be prosecuted. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Current: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Proposed: Euthanasia is illegal but not considered murder.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:25:01, September 24, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Euthansia Act |
| Message | We fervently support this legislation, although we would ideally like euthanasia to be deemed 'murder'. The terminally ill are simply in no stable mental state to determine whether they should live or die - a decision that has consequences far too great to be left to anyone in such a state. Likewise, those close to individuals in this dire position will be far too emotional to make rational decisions. On the other hand, there are those that may take advantage of such a situation, choosing to have the patient's life prematurely ended for some form of financial gain, or out of spite, or for some other selfish reason. Hospitals may decide to end the patient's life prematurely simply fto save costs, and doctors and nurses will be put in a position in which they wield the power over life and death, which causes significant moral dilemmas and emotional problems for many. In this regard, the risks involved in legal euthanasia are simply far too great, and outweigh any supposed 'benefits'. The value of life should be of utmost importance in any civilized society - legal euthanasia undermines life's inherent value, reducing it to some sort of commodity that we can decide to throw away at any given moment. The RHP favours palliative care as an alternative, which allows patients to live the rest of their days naturally, in peace and comfort, and with dignity. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 129 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 176 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow official national flags of real-life nations or flags which are very prominent and recognisable (eg. the flags of the European Union, the United Nations, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or the Confederate States of America). |
| Random quote: "Politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant." - Henri Queuille |