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: Dignity Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Likatonian Independence Party
Status[?]: passed
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: December 4189
Description[?]:
| The LIP strongly supports an individual's rights, this is an area where too much regulation and red tape leads to unnecessary suffering. We shouldn't require a special court order to grant someone the right to die with dignity when they are suffering from severe medical conditions. If the person is deemed capable of making the decision by a qualified medical professional then there should not be any further restrictions on the decision. Let's free the people and free up our courts! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is only allowed with consent from the patient and a court order.
Current: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Proposed: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:54:49, April 02, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Dignity Bill |
| Message | It will be now so easy for some crooked doctor to wipe out (unprofitable?) patients and forge their consent with no court overseeing the process. We hope the supporting parties think of those who will not want to die but will be eliminated with no protection from the Justice. |
| Date | 12:19:34, April 02, 2017 CET | From | Likatonian Independence Party | To | Debating the Dignity Bill |
| Message | If the patient does not give consent then it wouldn't matter if a doctor is crooked or not. Besides this, if a doctor is found to do such things he not only loses his license, he goes to jail. Short of a handful of psychopathic doctors, this would be a virtual non-issue. That said, we could support an amendment to this bill that would make it allowed with consent from the patient, a treating doctor, and a second doctor. That way, with a second opinion confirming the first, we rule out the risk of a crooked doctor. Finally, our current healthcare system has most hospitals state run and not-for-profit. The for-profit clinics and hospitals only have folks who can afford private for-profit care. So this issue you mention seems to not apply in any circumstance? The non-profitable patients are in non-profit public health care, the profitable ones are going to said crooked doctor and profitable. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 271 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 226 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: After 3 days (72 hours) your account will be inactivated by Moderation. If you want to be reactivated you can request reactivation located here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4360 |
| Random quote: "Up against the corporate government, voters find themselves asked to choose between look-alike candidates from two parties vying to see who takes the marching orders from their campaign paymasters and their future employers. The money of vested interest nullifies genuine voter choice and trust." - Ralph Nader |