S15: Euthanasia Ban Repeal Act (Passed)

[West_Midlander]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

EDIT: Also wanted to say, I think there should be reasonable safeguards. I agree with ZuWo that euthanasia should only be legal for adults that are terminally ill, with their express consent. I also think, perhaps two doctors would have to agree that recovery is extremely unlikely and two psychiatrists have to determine the patient is mentally fit to make the decision.

[West_Midlander]

The federal government legalized euthanasia last year IIRC.  In case that's at all relevant to this bill.

If so, then this means that overturning the euthanasia ban at least probably makes it legal in the South. We don't have state-level government, only regional level.

EDIT: Also wanted to say, I think there should be reasonable safeguards. I agree with ZuWo that euthanasia should only be legal for adults that are terminally ill, with their express consent. I also think, perhaps two doctors would have to agree that recovery is extremely unlikely and two psychiatrists have to determine the patient is mentally fit to make the decision.

Those safeguards are in the Federal law.

Are all those in the law, including two doctors and two psychiatrists' approval?

[West_Midlander]

Looks good, I'll vote in favor of the repeal.

[West_Midlander]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

Didn't think of this.

[West_Midlander]

I think allowing family members to veto a medical decision is a weird thought.

Since many medical procedures have the possibility to go wrong, can the family stop those too? At what point is the probability of a procedure killing someone high enough to allow the family to tell someone they can't get that procedure done?

Again, euthanasia is literally planned and assisted death. How is it a regular medical procedure? Sure, the family doesn't deserve to be able to stop regular medical procedures, but euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. It's just not regular, no. It's different. We have only chance to dwell on this Earth, and euthanasia puts an end to that purposely.

It might put an end to life like 2 months earlier than it would happen anyway. That's the point. Patients should have the right to make that decision if medical professionals deem it appropriate. Going with your system, if the family does approve the decision, there's a good chance it breaks them mentally, thinking that their loved one's death was their fault. And if they disapprove, they might feel similarly about forcing their family member to suffer. We shouldn't force terminally ill patients' family members to make such a decision that could easily be psychologically damaging to them for the rest of their life.

But the same could be said about the patient's mental state. They, themselves, aren't in their right mind. The could make a decision out of fear or whatnot. When someone is told they only have a few months or so to live, that messes with the mind. Also, I've seen and heard of a lot of cases where someone was told they only have a few months to live, to end up making a full recovery. I think this just opens the door for people to make decision about killing themselves out of fear.

Valid point. Also: Especially with the likely mounting cost of treatment (given chronic/serious conditions that would introduce euthanasia to the situation), in these scenarios, without Single Payer, citizens may feel pressured to end their lives to not be a strain on the family.

[West_Midlander]

I've been thinking on this. And I understand wanting to allow the patient to end their suffering. That is why I am willing to support this, if and only if, we pass this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hm. It makes the idea of immediate family agreement a bit more palatable to reduce it to spouse or next of kin. We could amend the bill to add the clauses suggested by Delegate Vern (in bold), if Delegate JustinTimeCuber is OK with them.

[West_Midlander]

I've been thinking on this. And I understand wanting to allow the patient to end their suffering. That is why I am willing to support this, if and only if, we pass this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Officially seconding that we add the text in bold to the amendment.

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye