HB 28-09: SADNEWS Act (Passed)

[Joseph Cao]

You may or may not have seen the sad news (IRL) from the UK that people with learning disabilities were told they would not be resuscitated if they caught COVID, as DNR notices had been issued for them – on account of their disability – without their leave. This follows the news from December that similar notices issued on a blanket basis to some care homes led to what were potentially avoidable deaths. I don’t need to tell you that this is obviously horrific, medical malpractice at best and bordering on eugenics at worst. Great Britain is, of course, part of Atlasia. Even if these incidents did not happen in-game, and I sincerely hope they have not, this represents a loophole that needs to be patched.

So this bill is my attempt at patching it. The findings are mostly self-explanatory, though I will add that finding (c) is based on several assessments that identified factors like increased vulnerability from living in care homes, communication barriers, and the difficulty of navigating the healthcare system faced by those with learning disabilities like Down’s syndrome. Section IV(4) bars medical practitioners from issuing DNRs on the basis of disability. The other items in Section IV codify some of the more glaring loopholes in current practice that potentially allow the medical sector to decide whether a patient lives or dies without the knowledge or consent of patients and their families. Since people with learning disabilities face a heightened mortality risk for COVID-19, Section V adds them to the second category for vaccinations alongside other high-risk groups.

Having a disability doesn’t make anyone less deserving to live. My pro-life stance is in part a stand against practices like these, and I urge the House to pass this bill and stand with the disadvantaged in our society.

[Joseph Cao]

Sorry for the delay on getting back to this.

I would argue Congress should in principle be able to do that, of course. To my understanding, though, we don't actually have much precedent on it and I think we can make this a congressional recommendation if that stands a better chance of being passed and implemented.

Anyway, I'd love to hear more from my fellow representatives on this matter.

[Joseph Cao]

Sorry for the delay on getting back to this.

I would argue Congress should in principle be able to do that, of course. To my understanding, though, we don't actually have much precedent on it and I think we can make this a congressional recommendation if that stands a better chance of being passed and implemented.

Anyway, I'd love to hear more from my fellow representatives on this matter.

Fortunately, now I am in a position to just modify the order and render the issue moot

I suspected something of the sort.

Actual Congressmen, anyone? Feedback? Questions? Amendments? Concerns? Tomatoes to throw?

[Joseph Cao]

As Section V has kindly been carried out by the President, I suppose it is rendered redundant and will be striking it from the bill.

EDIT: Also removed the clause that originally justified Section V, as that has also been reversed by the administration.

A BILL
To protect the wellbeing and rights of Atlasians with learning disabilities

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled,

SECTION I: TITLE
1. This legislation may be referred to as the Stop Abuse of DNACPR Notices and End Waitlist Situations (SADNEWS) Act.

SECTION II: DEFINITIONS
1. For the purposes of this bill,
   a. "Vaccine" shall refer to COVID-19 vaccines that have received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
   b. "Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders," also known as "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders," shall refer to medical orders written by doctors instructing healthcare providers not to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if a patient's breathing stops or if the patient's heart stops beating.
   c. "Learning disabilities" shall refer to clinically diagnosed conditions adversely affecting a person's ability to receive and process information, manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities.

SECTION III: FINDINGS
1. The Atlasian Congress finds:
   a. That, as presently defined, DNACPR orders are vulnerable to abuse by medical practitioners, administrators, or institutions;
   b. That COVID-19 patients with learning disabilities suffer an injustice when inappropriate DNACPR orders are issued for them without their consent;
   c. That, as a result of numerous environmental and bureaucratic obstacles to accessing treatment, people with learning disabilities are more likely than the average person to die of COVID-19 if they contract the disease and should be included among the highly-prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations forthwith.

SECTION IV: RESTRICTIONS ON DNACPR ORDERS
1. DNACPR orders must not be issued in blanket form to any group of people.
2. Medical officers shall be required to notify the patient (if possible) and any relevant family members, legal guardians, or healthcare advisors before issuing a DNACPR order for the patient.
3. DNACPR orders shall not be issued without the patient's explicit and official consent to the decision, provided the patient is able to give such.
   a. If—and only if—the patient is incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent, their family member(s), legal guardian(s), or a previously designated healthcare professional (if any) may make the decision on their behalf.
4. The presence, or lack thereof, of learning disabilities shall not be grounds for consideration or issuance of DNACPR orders for patients.


SECTION V: IMPLEMENTATION
1. This legislation shall take effect immediately upon passage.

Also good with a final vote.

[Joseph Cao]

AYE!