Physician Assisted Suicide Discussion

Patrick Barber — 10/29/2021

https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Physician_Assisted_Suicide_Act_(634%29

Proposed for debate to the General Assembly by @Rolf Michelsen (Critelia), an act to legalise physician assisted suicide.

[11:48 PM]

@Assembly Members are now free to comment.

[11:50 PM]

A question I have for the author, is what are the circumstances by which the right is legalised; Only extreme circumstances, if approved by multiple specialists?, If approved by a single physician?, If approved by a family member with power of attorney?, or at the will of any patient, even in circumstances where an illness isn't necessarily terminal

October 30, 2021

Rolf Michelsen (Critelia) — 10/30/2021

I tried my best to clarify that as I do agree that it should only be for situations where someone has been given the legitimate prognosis that they only have a limited amount of time left on earth and that during that time they will be suffering knowing such things as the pain and loss that they will be extremely likely to die based on scientific data and research.

[6:05 AM]

A patient or civilian is most definitely required to receive a notice that their remaining life is limited, approved by both their primary physician and reviewed by 2 other licensed physicians to prevent a false positive diagnosis of time left to live

[6:08 AM]

And the only way that patient can willing give away their right to life is by signing off to their physician if mentally competent as determined by the same 3 physicians giving the diagnosis. The power of attorney is also able to make the choice for a patient that is mentally incompetent if written within their will that they would like to be put to death instead of made to cause suffering for their family when in such a situation

[6:09 AM]

Since this is a hot topic that comes up occasionally, I thought this would be a great chance to see what other people think!

Patrick Barber — 10/30/2021

this is a philosophical question more than a legal one; why must the disease be sufficiently terminal? Say a patient had a stroke and found the difficulty of disability to be so unpleasant to them they preferred to die. Why should that patient be obligated to live?

Rolf Michelsen (Critelia) — 10/30/2021

That’s a great point! I’m not for the idea of making someone feel truly obligated to live, but I realize some individuals will have more conservative views that someone wishing to kill themselves should only have the right to do so given a terminal diagnosis

[6:15 AM]

I tried to go ahead and find some compromise when putting this together but my personal opinion is more so that if someone truly does wish to end their life and can prove they are mentally competent through a standardized test they should also be offered the choice of ending their life, no matter their physical condition.

Patrick Barber — 10/30/2021

Returning then to a legal question, why three physicians? Wouldn't a single accredited specialist be sufficient to determine the lethality of a disorder?

Rolf Michelsen (Critelia) — 10/30/2021

There is always the chance of having someone present a false positive after being begged or pleaded with that they wish to die. For those with more conservative values on the sanctity of life, having at least 2/3 accrediting physicians helps the eliminate the possibility of a false positive. However I believe a sufficiently accredited specialist could very much take the place of 3 physicians given their speciality.

Patrick Barber — 10/30/2021

I'll retire my questions for the time being. @Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) @Taiping you're some of our more active and more conservative minds; what is your opinion?

Zoque Fotekh — 10/30/2021

There is also the associated issue of indemnity for the medical professionals involved. What exactly is meant by "physician assisted"? There are ethical issues with knowingly taking a life, even if justified. Current laws in Aus require signing off by doctors but the patient must be able to administer it themselves without any assistance.

Patrick Barber — 10/30/2021

its only an ethical issue if it isn't exempted in the code of ethics *taps forehead meme

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 10/30/2021

It seems my old stodgy opinions have been anticipated

I appreciate the care taken in forming this bill, particularly protecting the role and vows of the medical professional. But the institution of willful suicide is not a path the people of Mengtian are willing to support. It is a difficult subject and there is a fine line to be drawn somewhere, and I think Ulrykk's questions uncover some of that challenge.

The end of life by direct, active, intervention is still a form of murder. The end of life by ending (with permission) life-sustaining medical support is as close as I'm willing to support.

Patrick Barber — 10/30/2021

how would you classify a doctor providing a painless life ending medication (with a short use by date), and the patient being required to administer the drug by themselves of their own choice (with the other caveats still in place). Would you still consider that unacceptable to legalise?

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 10/30/2021

Even before the direct ethical question, I think that puts the doctor in the position of "Accessory" to the deed done, violating point 2 in the proposed bill.

Zoque Fotekh — 10/30/2021

To address that, right to die laws tend to exist to accomodate scenarios where pain medication will be insufficient to manage end of life pain. What are the ethical implications of keeping a person alive, in pain vs allowing a merciful release through the method of death?

[8:19 AM]

The bills covers the provisions but rewording of "physician assisted" may be required.

1

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 10/30/2021

The ethics of keeping someone alive? If life is an ontological good, then the effort to preserve it cannot be considered an ethical quandary.

Zoque Fotekh — 10/30/2021

Not so much the ethics of keeping someone alive, but in a state where all they will know is pain.

Patrick Barber — 10/30/2021

I don't presume to speak on Martang's behalf but I believe he means to say even in that circumstance.

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 10/30/2021

What is pain? What life is without pain? Obviously I know what you mean, debilitating condition with physical pain - but another underlying issue with this potential exception is that it is difficult to keep a limited definition of pain without drawing lots of arbitrary lines that will remain legal battlegrounds for years. (edited)

Zoque Fotekh — 10/30/2021

Not necessarily. Pain is already pretty well defined. It is assessed by a series of markers and in the case of those unable to express their level of pain, it is qualified by the quantity of markers.

To legislate to willingly keep a person in pain may require additional legislation defining what constitutes torture so the government can avoid future repercussions.

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 10/30/2021

The torture reference would most likely be a non sequitur, as the cause of the pain is quite different in either scenario.

Zoque Fotekh — 10/30/2021

I dont have anything else to add to the pain discussion yet, but just noticed a minor point earlier in the discussion that should be clarified.

It varies by name depending on nation but power of attorney relates to financial and asset matters only. It does not give the power to make medical decisions on a person's behalf. That is usually referred to as power of guardianship.

Rolf Michelsen (Critelia) — 10/30/2021

That's true, I work in an industry where power of attorney is a term I use once a week

November 20, 2021

Patrick Barber — 11/20/2021

I regretfully note the introducing member has emigrated from the Republic.

I ask the @Assembly Members if they would like to  A: continue to debate a bill on Euthanasia at this time,  or if B: the assembly would like to remove this bill from consideration at this time to be reintroduced at a later date by a sitting member. (edited)

10

5

November 22, 2021

Patrick Barber — 11/22/2021

I would like to ping @Assembly Members just one last time to request members make their position heard on this matter, specifically because the vote here is very close.

Grand Kaiser Hoffe Von Richter — 11/22/2021

Right to die?

[3:43 AM]

It was introduced before I joined.

[3:43 AM]

But  I think that suicide should be legal but defenitely not reccomended

Patrick Barber

https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Physician_Assisted_Suicide_Act_(634%29   Proposed for debate to the General Assembly by @Rolf Michelsen (Critelia), an act to legalise physician assisted suicide.

Patrick Barber — 11/22/2021

The resolution proper is found in the first message, which is also pinned.

November 28, 2021

Patrick Barber — 11/28/2021

I'd say the motion to maintain debate on the article has passed. I will endeavour to write the requisite act for this resolution this week.

December 22, 2021

@Patrick Barber

I'd say the motion to maintain debate on the article has passed. I will endeavour to write the requisite act for this resolution this week.

Dragin Gaming — 12/22/2021

what is the conclusion to this debate?

Patrick Barber — 12/22/2021

I have begun writing the resolution but prioritised the national reports and the election. I can't guarantee I'll finish it before Xmas but it will probably be done before new year's

@Patrick Barber

I have begun writing the resolution but prioritised the national reports and the election. I can't guarantee I'll finish it before Xmas but it will probably be done before new year's

Dragin Gaming — 12/22/2021

Thank you! It's no problem to me when it is done, I was just wondering about the result

4

Patrick Barber — 12/22/2021

Its a complex and complicated issue, so I have wanted to be in the right mindset to write a resolution I feel would be amenable to the most people. Especially one which accepts the thoughts and feelings of people opposed to the idea and finds a middle ground between the opportunity to die in a way that is most dignified to the patient. Some would say a fast painless death early in a terminal illness is most dignified; others may say that dying a fully natural death is a more spiritually pure dignity. I believe it is important to recognising the positions of our citizens and validate the full gradient opinions in our law, even if ultimately the law provides choices that some may disagree should be allowed.

@Patrick Barber

Its a complex and complicated issue, so I have wanted to be in the right mindset to write a resolution I feel would be amenable to the most people. Especially one which accepts the thoughts and feelings of people opposed to the idea and finds a middle ground between the opportunity to die in a way that is most dignified to the patient. Some would say a fast painless death early in a terminal illness is most dignified; others may say that dying a fully natural death is a more spiritually pure dignity. I believe it is important to recognising the positions of our citizens and validate the full gradient opinions in our law, even if ultimately the law provides choices that some may disagree should be allowed.

Dragin Gaming — 12/22/2021

I definately agree with this, which is why I personally think that it should be a choice

January 4, 2022

1 message hidden from likely spammer. — Show message

January 5, 2022

Harry Newlston — 01/05/2022

If you're braindead you shouldn't have access to the right to Assisted Suicide as they may not understand the importance of life

[6:32 AM]

I belive that as long as you are not in an permanent state of extreme pain you shouldn't have access

Patrick Barber

I have begun writing the resolution but prioritised the national reports and the election. I can't guarantee I'll finish it before Xmas but it will probably be done before new year's

Patrick Barber — 01/05/2022

This has turned out to be a small fib. I will see if I can get it done this weekend. Its been.. challenging with Omicron about.

1

1

1

January 6, 2022

@Harry Newlston

I belive that as long as you are not in an permanent state of extreme pain you shouldn't have access

Zoque Fotekh — 01/06/2022

I assume you mean purely physical pain? The mental stress on a person in this state can be equally painful to any physical pain.

Zoque Fotekh — 01/06/2022

Generally in these circumstances, which are incredibly rare, they are judged on a case by case basis and the decision comes from family or medical guardian, not the person themselves. Life support is removed once brain function ceases as the person is officially dead.

January 7, 2022

@Zoque Fotekh

I assume you mean purely physical pain? The mental stress on a person in this state can be equally painful to any physical pain.

Harry Newlston — 01/07/2022

I belive mental pain is treatable, if we allow people in mental pain to commit assisted suicide it's the same as allowing normal suicide

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/07/2022

But I don’t think we should allow “normal suicide”

Harry Newlston — 01/07/2022

Absolutely not ofc, I was just adressing the statement made by Zoque Fotekh

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/07/2022

We cant really get rid of the so called normal suicide, we can only try to stop it happening by helping the people that want to do it mentally

2

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/07/2022

@Harry Newlston Reading back I know what you were implying. Sat down in the lunchroom and quickly glanced at this lol

[1:34 PM]

But back to the point, I don’t know if I’m a fan of the right to die legislation or not. Maybe in very, very extreme circumstances, yes. I feel like there have to be strict rules on who can and cannot. If there is treatment, then no.

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/07/2022

I understand that research is important, but if it means our patiens have to feel like they are being tortured, and im not having it

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/07/2022

A good example would be cancer. If you were diagnosed, for example, with stage two cancer. Of course, one would panic and start to worry. There are treatments for cancer, pills, radiation, etc. but if one was to say that they did not want to put themselves through that knowing it’s not guaranteed they will live or go into remission with the cancer, implying they wanted to end their life. In my opinion, that’s not ok if there are adequate and effective treatment options out there.

[1:40 PM]

Therefore reinstating my claim that this has to be heavily watched (I don’t want to say restrictive but maybe a lesser connotation of that) (edited)

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/07/2022

And what if the treatments somehow dont work?

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/07/2022

Then I would say try everything you can before you make that decision

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/07/2022

What if our attempts just make the situation worse? I suggest a limit before a patient can have his way (edited)

Harry Newlston — 01/07/2022

I believe that for cases where assisted suicide is allowed there has to be a council that reviews every case

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 01/07/2022

the proverbial death squad

@Harry Newlston

I belive mental pain is treatable, if we allow people in mental pain to commit assisted suicide it's the same as allowing normal suicide

Zoque Fotekh — 01/07/2022

To address this point, how do you treat the mental stress of a person locked in a body that cannot operate? More often than not, they cannot even comprehend anything happening around them. The only treatment is medication that removes their ability to make decisions or even conversation. In some cases that same medication causes delirium, making their mental stress worse, only now they can't express it. In those cases, the morphine is increased as it's the only treatment left and they rarely last more than 48 hours. The only thing that has been achieved is to cause more distress for the patient in their last days.

1

@Wesley Karlsson (New Asden)

A good example would be cancer. If you were diagnosed, for example, with stage two cancer. Of course, one would panic and start to worry. There are treatments for cancer, pills, radiation, etc. but if one was to say that they did not want to put themselves through that knowing it’s not guaranteed they will live or go into remission with the cancer, implying they wanted to end their life. In my opinion, that’s not ok if there are adequate and effective treatment options out there.

Zoque Fotekh — 01/07/2022

This is a good point but stage 2 would not be considered terminal. I'm guessing here but I assume the legislation would become effective where the odds of successful treatment are very low. To provide an example:

Warning, this is going to be pretty grim.

A patient is diagnosed with a brain tumor, stage 3 or 4. They undergo treatment as they are not yet considered terminal and the right to die legislation is not yet applicable. It is unsuccessful. They are then usually transferred to a palliative unit where they will spend their remaining months until they die. Medication is provided to manage their pain, which in almost every case is only partially effective. As they lose more and more functionality, due to both the tumour and the pain medication they lose the ability to do anything for themselves. At first it is just needing someone to wash them in the shower and take them to the toilet. All privacy is gone because they are so weak that they cannot be left alone. They have to take a dump with somebody watching them. As it progresses, they can't even be taken to the bathroom. They are washed in the bed and rolled on their side as they take a dump into a bowl and then a new nappy is put on. They can no longer feed themselves and the chance of choking is high so they have to have a vitamised mush spooned into them. Food always ends up down their chin. This will go on for weeks with the patient getting weaker and weaker. If they have the capacity for speech, they will spend their time begging family members to get them something to "let them go". The pain medication is effective and they are not in pain, just distraught at their situation. That continues until they accidentally inhale some food because they can't swallow properly. They die from aspirational pneumonia, gurgling and unable to breathe properly. Or they die because their pain has increased to the point that the morphine they are receiving for their pain retards their breathing and they just stop.

[7:56 PM]

This is how most people die.

Patrick Barber — 01/07/2022

That was my father's experience with cancer. Minus the pneumonia. he went the, so many meds he never woke up, and slowly starved in a coma-like state until he eventually died - route. For much of the last few months, he thought I was his brother. (edited)

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/07/2022

I am sorry to hear that

Zoque Fotekh — 01/07/2022

I'm sorry to bring that up but I thought it was important for people to understand the reality.

[8:04 PM]

The point of that rather grim story was to offer the point of the legislation. Once a terminal diagnosis is confirmed and transfer to a palliative unit  is the next step, should a person be able to say "no more" while they still can?

@Zoque Fotekh

This is a good point but stage 2 would not be considered terminal. I'm guessing here but I assume the legislation would become effective where the odds of successful treatment are very low. To provide an example:  Warning, this is going to be pretty grim. A patient is diagnosed with a brain tumor, stage 3 or 4. They undergo treatment as they are not yet considered terminal and the right to die legislation is not yet applicable. It is unsuccessful. They are then usually transferred to a palliative unit where they will spend their remaining months until they die. Medication is provided to manage their pain, which in almost every case is only partially effective. As they lose more and more functionality, due to both the tumour and the pain medication they lose the ability to do anything for themselves. At first it is just needing someone to wash them in the shower and take them to the toilet. All privacy is gone because they are so weak that they cannot be left alone. They have to take a dump with somebody watching them. As it progresses, they can't even be taken to the bathroom. They are washed in the bed and rolled on their side as they take a dump into a bowl and then a new nappy is put on. They can no longer feed themselves and the chance of choking is high so they have to have a vitamised mush spooned into them. Food always ends up down their chin. This will go on for weeks with the patient getting weaker and weaker. If they have the capacity for speech, they will spend their time begging family members to get them something to "let them go". The pain medication is effective and they are not in pain, just distraught at their situation. That continues until they accidentally inhale some food because they can't swallow properly. They die from aspirational pneumonia, gurgling and unable to breathe properly. Or they die because their pain has increased to the point that the morphine they are receiving for their pain retards their breathing and they just stop.

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/07/2022

I have to agree with you on that 100%. Actually happened to a distant family member. But once again, I do not object, but only if it is strict (edited)

Zoque Fotekh — 01/07/2022

Of course. There seemed to be some grey area about when the proposal would come into effect.

1

January 8, 2022

@Zoque Fotekh

This is a good point but stage 2 would not be considered terminal. I'm guessing here but I assume the legislation would become effective where the odds of successful treatment are very low. To provide an example:  Warning, this is going to be pretty grim. A patient is diagnosed with a brain tumor, stage 3 or 4. They undergo treatment as they are not yet considered terminal and the right to die legislation is not yet applicable. It is unsuccessful. They are then usually transferred to a palliative unit where they will spend their remaining months until they die. Medication is provided to manage their pain, which in almost every case is only partially effective. As they lose more and more functionality, due to both the tumour and the pain medication they lose the ability to do anything for themselves. At first it is just needing someone to wash them in the shower and take them to the toilet. All privacy is gone because they are so weak that they cannot be left alone. They have to take a dump with somebody watching them. As it progresses, they can't even be taken to the bathroom. They are washed in the bed and rolled on their side as they take a dump into a bowl and then a new nappy is put on. They can no longer feed themselves and the chance of choking is high so they have to have a vitamised mush spooned into them. Food always ends up down their chin. This will go on for weeks with the patient getting weaker and weaker. If they have the capacity for speech, they will spend their time begging family members to get them something to "let them go". The pain medication is effective and they are not in pain, just distraught at their situation. That continues until they accidentally inhale some food because they can't swallow properly. They die from aspirational pneumonia, gurgling and unable to breathe properly. Or they die because their pain has increased to the point that the morphine they are receiving for their pain retards their breathing and they just stop.

Harry Newlston — 01/08/2022

In the case of cancer I belive that assisted suicide shouldn't be used as there always is a chance of survival with new treatments underworks also as you stated the pain brought to the patient is treatable through meditation. I also belive that most people wish to spend the most time possible with their loved one before they tragically pass away from cancer.

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/08/2022

Im pretty sure some cancers just arent treatable

Harry Newlston — 01/08/2022

The way technology is advancing just think of what we thought was possible 20 years ago vs today. The odds are never zero

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/08/2022

Fine, techonology will advance, but by the time it does, the cancer which is not treatable will have immediate effect on the patient and should assisted suicide be only allowed if the patient himself wants to?

@Harry Newlston

In the case of cancer I belive that assisted suicide shouldn't be used as there always is a chance of survival with new treatments underworks also as you stated the pain brought to the patient is treatable through meditation. I also belive that most people wish to spend the most time possible with their loved one before they tragically pass away from cancer.

Zoque Fotekh — 01/08/2022

Which is also why a lot of people refuse treatment. They opt for quality over quantity. Regardless of whether they are treated or not, right-to-die would come into play once EOL care comes into effect.

Harry Newlston — 01/08/2022

Sure but at that point the time till death is usually so short that assisted suicide is pointless and as I understand it most family members wish to spend as much time saying goodbye as they can and cutting the patients life short would in most cases devestate the family- (edited)

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/08/2022

But what if the patient wants to do it? Whatever the time is

@Harry Newlston

Sure but at that point the time till death is usually so short that assisted suicide is pointless and as I understand it most family members wish to spend as much time saying goodbye as they can and cutting the patients life short would in most cases devestate the family- (edited)

Patrick Barber — 01/08/2022

It would be unusual that the autonomous rights and decisions of one person are dissolved merely because that person's family disagrees with that decision.

@Patrick Barber

It would be unusual that the autonomous rights and decisions of one person are dissolved merely because that person's family disagrees with that decision.

Harry Newlston — 01/08/2022

I believe that in this case it isn't as this is the same as with regular suicide. The cops wont allow you to commit suicide because you want to

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/08/2022

But this is assisted suicide, something totally different which has nothing to do with the cops

Harry Newlston — 01/08/2022

That is true but its the same premise

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/08/2022

Not really, normal suicide is attempted to be stopped, while assisted isnt (edited)

Harry Newlston — 01/08/2022

Well both is discouraged

[11:47 AM]

Both lead to the death of the recipient if successful

January 9, 2022

@Harry Newlston

Sure but at that point the time till death is usually so short that assisted suicide is pointless and as I understand it most family members wish to spend as much time saying goodbye as they can and cutting the patients life short would in most cases devestate the family- (edited)

Zoque Fotekh — 01/09/2022

Actually, in 90% of cases the family want to hurry it along and release their loved ones from distress. Just today I was asked if I could give some "extra to speed things along".

@Harry Newlston

Both lead to the death of the recipient if successful

Zoque Fotekh — 01/09/2022

Whilst this is true and both follow similar thought processes. "Normal" suicide (anything but normal but I understand your meaning) stems from a belief that there is no chance of improvement. Usually despite evidence to the contrary. Assisted suicide in the context that we are discussing here comes from the medical certainty that there is not going to be any improvement and a decline is inevitable from this point forward.

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/09/2022

Im pretty sure that family members would rather ease the pain then let their loved one feel it

Zoque Fotekh — 01/09/2022

Precisely.

Harry Newlston — 01/09/2022

I see where you're coming from, potentially assisted suicide could become possible if the patient, family, head of the hospital and doctor approves it.

@Harry Newlston

I see where you're coming from, potentially assisted suicide could become possible if the patient, family, head of the hospital and doctor approves it.

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/09/2022

Of course, everyone has to approve it, its only fair

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/09/2022

After deep thought I have made my decision to approve

Harry Newlston — 01/09/2022

Same

January 10, 2022

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian)

The ethics of keeping someone alive? If life is an ontological good, then the effort to preserve it cannot be considered an ethical quandary.

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 01/10/2022

Still a concern ^

Wesley Karlsson (New Asden) — 01/10/2022

I have to agree. Honestly I am torn on what to decide

Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 01/10/2022

It's worse in real life than in a simulation, I'd concede, as this can be a gateway to different issues which could creep in (lax requirements, eugenics...)

Yilmiz Imperial Service — 01/10/2022

I've been following the back-and-forth for this issue and am looking forward to reading the completed resolution prior to voting on it. I would like to ask about the resolution's title. I suggest not using 'suicide' so that the resolution is inclusive of life-ending medical procedures not decided by oneself; for example, those requested by kin exercising powers of attorney. Such would not be called 'suicide' per se.

Patrick Barber — 01/10/2022

My working title is currently the "dying with dignity act" but I likely will change it before I'm finished

2

January 11, 2022

Patrick Barber — 01/11/2022

My sense of the legislation has changed while I've been writing it; I'm on about draft 4 at this point. I hope to have it done tonight. I spent most of yesterday updating the NS TKR master dispatch and ran out of time.

@Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian)

It's worse in real life than in a simulation, I'd concede, as this can be a gateway to different issues which could creep in (lax requirements, eugenics...)

Zoque Fotekh — 01/11/2022

But if we deny things based on a "what if" escalation scenario then literally everything is impossible and we could never pass another law again. Eugenics, etc. are a very long bow from this.

This is why we legislate. We try to accomodate and legislate to prevent corrupting the purpose and amend it if it proves insufficient. To use the same process, doing anything else leads to everyone never doing anything for fear of a worst case scenario where wolves eat us as we leave the house because of deforestation forcing them into urban areas.

Zoque Fotekh — 01/11/2022

An extreme scenario maybe and I've probably gone off on a tangent but my point is just because something has the potential to fail doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it if the intent is to improve lives.

The Democratic States Of Slatium — 01/11/2022

I agree with that

@Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian)

The ethics of keeping someone alive? If life is an ontological good, then the effort to preserve it cannot be considered an ethical quandary.

Zoque Fotekh — 01/11/2022

I understand your point but it implies that quantity is more important than quality. Right-to-die is based on the premise that once quantity is inevitably short and quality will only deteriorate from this point forward, that the person be allowed to choose quality over quantity.

February 17, 2022

Grand Kaiser Hoffe Von Richter — 02/17/2022

never mind 6 months

March 14, 2022

Patrick Barber — Today at 7:17 PM

I would like to motion to withdraw this bill until such time as I or someone else can write a better one

2

Yilmiz Imperial Service — Today at 7:18 PM

I will support the motion to withdraw this bill

Indomitable Republic of Kusaca — Today at 8:09 PM

I third this motion

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — Today at 8:16 PM

Unless there is any opposed I will leave this page open another 24 hours and will archive it after this time

4

NEW

Zoque Fotekh — Today at 9:15 PM

I suspect this is a subject that will always be contentious regardless of how well it is written.