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: Euthanasia Regulation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Aldurian Conservative 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: June 2139
Description[?]:
| This bill will require a court order for euthenasia to be legal, so as to prevent the undue pressuring of the patient or doctor to permit the procedure from making it take place. |
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 only allowed with consent from the patient and a court order.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:08:00, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | A court order ? How dare a court can decide if a person is 'suffering enough' or not ? Moreover, all that the parties will do in court is to call a physician as an expect. The proposed amendment will be painful for the patient and may even introduces serious flaws in terms of confidentiality. |
| Date | 08:08:26, November 10, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | This debate sounds rather familiar. As we said in the bill, the patient may be pressured...and a court bringing in an independent physician (read: Not one with any connection to the involved parties, notably monetarily), a possibility with this act, can only help avoid such circumstances as we wish to avoid. This nation may not mandate euthenasia, but there are cases in which euthenasia may well be pressured onto someone. It can happen, and the best we can hope for are checks and balances against this. |
| Date | 13:04:27, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | This is a deeply personal choice (and the final choice) and I believe that this should remain between pacient and doctor. We would, in no case vote for this resolution. To be pressured into dying...this has never happened to me...nor to anyone I have ever known (except in the case of murder). I havn't even ever hear this on the news. Could you give me a `real life` example? |
| Date | 14:27:15, November 10, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | Yes. Mistaken Euthenasia, as we'll term it, has occurred in the Netherlands at least 1000 times since their law was instituted. This is where the doctors had either the implicit permission of the patient (but didn't have it explicitly necessarily) or who otherwise misread a patient's intentions, be it accidentially or otherwise (and yes, there are some cases where the 'misreading' may have been purposeful). |
| Date | 20:55:52, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Libertarian Socialist Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | This debate sound familiar because the conservative keep trying to introduces these extreme 'reforms'. "Yes. Mistaken Euthenasia, as we'll term it, has occurred in the Netherlands at least 1000 times since their law was instituted. This is where the doctors had either the implicit permission of the patient (but didn't have it explicitly necessarily) or who otherwise misread a patient's intentions, be it accidentially or otherwise (and yes, there are some cases where the 'misreading' may have been purposeful)." If the current law is silent about this subject, it can be amended to require an explicit written consent from the patient. |
| Date | 01:07:14, November 11, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Front | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | A doctor is better qualified to tell if a person may come through, or how grievous the situation really is, medically at least. |
| Date | 01:56:04, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | We agree with the bill because it allows the patient to be clearly understood. It also allows the loved ones to expressly know the patient's wishes. |
| Date | 10:13:18, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | This argument doesn't sound very strong. Only a truely half-witted person would go to a 'death' clinic and let the doctor inject something into them with out knowing what they were doing...or not saying something at all. How could the person possible not know what they were doing. I can't understand how, something like this could happen...unless it was murder, in which case this debate enters into the realm of criminology and not euthenasia. |
| Date | 17:02:12, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Aldurian Moderates | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | We envision the court order to be nothing more than the patient's wishes expressed clearly in a legal document so no one can claim they wanted otherwise. |
| Date | 06:32:38, November 12, 2005 CET | From | New Aldurian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Euthanasia Regulation Act |
| Message | We would concur with the Aldurian Moderates. Simply put, having an independent party (ie one not affiliated with the treating hospital/doctors or the patient) evaluate the case objectively is a safeguard against someone being pressured into accepting euthenasia. And the only way provided for that to happen in the list of options here was the court order option. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 176 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 225 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password. |
| Random quote: "It is the hallmark of great society to debate and disagree without resorting to violence." - Mathew Jameson, former Hutorian politician |