Jump to content

[DRAFT] Rights for the Terminally Ill


mousebumples

Recommended Posts

Hey all!

As you might know (if you stalk the GA proposal queue), there's a repeal At Quorum to get rid of Dignified End of Life Choices. I'm hopeful that the repeal will be successful, and I've decided to stretch my proposal writing muscles and draft a replacement.

I'm taking a fairly NatSov approach, I'll admit - allowing nations to determine whether or not they will allow euthanasia but setting requirements for those that do want to allow euthanasia within their borders. It'll probably be 2+ weeks before the repeal will be at vote, so I won't be submitting this for at least that long. Still, I'd like to get a good proposal in place on what I know is a pretty contentious topic.

Anyhow, here goes ... and I'll have a few more comments at the bottom as well:
 

 

Rights for the Terminally Ill
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Author: Mousebumples

Description:  THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

UNDERSTANDS that the terminally ill may be a threatened class of individuals within some nations and should be accorded specific rights and protections;

RECOMMENDS member nations provide resources to allow their citizens and residents to complete advance health directives (e.g. living will) to ensure that their wishes are followed in the event of a terminal illness;

PERMITS member nations to determine whether or not to allow euthanasia within their borders;

REQUIRES member nations that elect to allow euthanasia within their borders to obey the following:
  • Terminally ill patients shall make the request of their own volition prior to the administration of any euthanasia medications. Advance health directives may serve as such a request, in the event that the terminally ill patient is unable to communicate effectively,
  • Requests for euthanasia must be voluntary and uncoerced.
  • Teminally ill patients shall be given the opportunity to rescind their request for euthanasia medications prior to their administration.
  • No physicians or other medical professionals shall be required to perform euthanasia or euthanasia-related activities, nor shall they be penalized or fined for such a refusal, and
  • Euthanasia shall not be used to remove undesirable people from a nation's population;
ENSURES that sufficient pain medications shall be made available to terminally ill patients, so as to ensure no individuals are opting for euthanasia so as to avoid the pain;

STIPULATES that individuals shall not be restricted from leaving their home nation to seek euthanasia treatment elsewhere.

 

This needs some updating/redrafting, but I haven't had time quite yet. Here's a quick list of things that I'm likely to edit/add:

  • Require physicians that refuse to perform euthanasia to provide a referral to a willing physician,
  • Definitions of some sort for "euthanasia" and "terminally ill," and
  • A clause encouraging all nations to improve their end of life care to minimize the need for euthanasia due to treatable/fixable things.

I'm also planning to do more research on RL euthanasia programs to see what their standards are and how they work in practice. Certainly, if anyone has such RL knowledge, feel free to make my life easier and share that sort of intel. :P

As always, opinions are welcome!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I approved the repeal proposal and was curious as to what a replacement might look like.

 

On first read, It does seem to largely be NatSov as you indicated, although I could see some taking issue with a few areas.  And I do agree it will need some degree of definition or specification for terminally ill....because after all, everyone is terminal in the end.

 

Perhaps a referal hotline could be provided in place of a requirement for physicians refusing euthanasia providing the referal.  A physician may have religious beliefs that could be infringed by such a requirement.

 

I don't particularly have much RL knowledge on the subject.  I know Oregon passed such a law, and Living Wills are pretty widely accepted.  It is often recommended, especially for the extremely ill or elderly, that they keep a copy of their Living Will and/or Do Not Resuscitate orders posted where it can easily be seen by emergency medical service workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(OOC sorry for copying this straight from my post on the WAGA thread on this)

 

Mayhaps, at least, if you want a definition for Terminally Ill, a suggestion would be:

"A person who is suffering from a life-threatening illness to which there is no present cure, or present cures do not work on the person."

Might need to be slightly reworded, but it could cover those which treatment has failed to work on (I.E: their own immune system prevents it, or the nature of their species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback so far, guys.  And, yes, this is still leaving the decision to legal (or outlaw) euthanasia up to the individual nation, but if euthanasia is going to be legal, I'd like to have some standards in place - which is where this concept came from.  I probably won't have time to edit the draft fully until this weekend sometime, but I'll definitely keep your comments in mind.

 

Thanks again! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person who is suffering from a life-threatening illness to which there is no present cure, or present cures do not work on the person."

 

This is probably okay.  And yet.....in RL I myself suffer a condition in which I am 100x more likely to die on any given day than the average person, there are no cures, and it will likely shorten my life.  But I wouldn't classify it as being terminally ill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...