[Passed] Quarantine Regulation

[Herbandua]

Not gonna support at all!




lol

[Euanos]

Why don't we take these countries under our wings as colonies or vassals so that our economic growth is their economic growth too? Everyone's living standards go up.

[Umeria]

OOC: Links and titles updated. I'm sorry they were late but I was really tired...

[Otrua]

...
2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. ...
2. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. curing the infected person;
   2. rendering the infected person non-contagious;
   3. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
   4. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

...

If killing a person renders them non-contagious, is it OK to kill them? Or torturing?

There should be a line item that would enforce that:

1. if people can't be cured, they should be at least made comfortable (for example, pain killers)
2. they are living in good conditions
3. they have internet access, so they can video-chat with their uninfected friends/family
4. they have access to things like education, exercise, entertainment (books, movies, etc) - especially if they are in quarantine for a long time

[Umeria]

If killing a person renders them non-contagious, is it OK to kill them? Or torturing?

No, because 4(c) says you need to provide every treatment to them. If one treatment is to kill them, then another is to stop that treatment(due to the "prevent unnecessary harm" clause). So, murder and other violent treatments are cancelled out by the prevention treatments.

if people can't be cured, they should be at least made comfortable (for example, pain killers)

Does that need to be enforced? Reasonable nations would give them the painkillers anyway to get them to stop screaming.

they are living in good conditions

How would you define a "good condition"?

they have internet access, so they can video-chat with their uninfected friends/family

There are many past-tech nations in which internet does not exist.

they have access to things like education, exercise, entertainment (books, movies, etc) - especially if they are in quarantine for a long time

I think that falls under "any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive".

[Separatist Peoples]

...
2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. ...
2. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. curing the infected person;
   2. rendering the infected person non-contagious;
   3. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
   4. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

...

If killing a person renders them non-contagious, is it OK to kill them? Or torturing?

"I suppose that depends on policy. There are certainly several resolutions that prevent the state from using violence in particular circumstances, but none that prevent medical culling to my knowledge. Its possible that would count as euthanasia, and therefore require the target's permission. Torturing them would unquestionably be out of the question: extant resolutions forbid such action."

There should be a line item that would enforce that:

1. if people can't be cured, they should be at least made comfortable (for example, pain killers)
2. they are living in good conditions

"Not to nitpick, these two are perfectly fair, but define "good" conditions?"

they have internet access, so they can video-chat with their uninfected friends/family

"Alternatively, allow them correspondence, as not every nation has the internet or even allows internet connectivity to civilians."

they have access to things like education, exercise, entertainment (books, movies, etc) - especially if they are in quarantine for a long time

"Now, here is an interesting question for the author: has extant legislation on the rights of the incarcerated included those detained in quarantine, or merely those in a penal institution? At what point can a quarantine be considered incarceration in practice, if not definition? What might be valuable is dedicating a section, or even an entire resolution, to the rights of those quarantined, much like the right of convicted criminals, and ensuring that states can fairly deal with individual rights while taking emergency steps."

OOC: This is, of course, tricky. IIRC, the CDC has terrifyingly broad powers that override a number of legal and human rights in particularly dire circumstances. The US, being a relatively reasoned entity, doesn't abuse them, but NS has the unreasonable aplenty. As I suggested before (and have no idea how the idea was received), establishing a WA oversight committee designed to function specifically as a medical ethics review board on the topic of broad, emergency quarantines. You've already tasked your committee to aid in the logistical issues, expanding it to deal with the ethical issues is a reasonable next step. And, if this isn't an option for this proposal, perhaps you ought to write another proposal dealing with those issues first, the better to smooth the way for this one.

[Morteuphoria]

...
2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. ...
2. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. curing the infected person;
   2. rendering the infected person non-contagious;
   3. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
   4. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

...

If killing a person renders them non-contagious, is it OK to kill them? Or torturing?

There should be a line item that would enforce that:

1. if people can't be cured, they should be at least made comfortable (for example, pain killers)
2. they are living in good conditions
3. they have internet access, so they can video-chat with their uninfected friends/family
4. they have access to things like education, exercise, entertainment (books, movies, etc) - especially if they are in quarantine for a long time

I am against Internet access, as my nation is mostly not permitted access to almost any part of the Internet other than a few shoddy government-run sites. And any other forms of entertainment would have to be government-approved first as well, of course.

[Kryozerkia]

...
2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. ...
2. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. curing the infected person;
   2. rendering the infected person non-contagious;
   3. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
   4. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

...

If I was to change one word, I'd change "any" to "appropriate".

[Premedite]

3(d) of GA #53 basically covers this subject already.

agreed

[Umeria]

3(d) of GA #53 basically covers this subject already.

agreed

That resolution covers the incipient stages of an outbreak, this one comes into effect when the outbreak gets serious. Also:

Official ruling: ... There is no overlap, no duplication, and no contradiction of GAR#53 in this proposal as currently written.

[Kryozerkia]

agreed

That resolution covers the incipient stages of an outbreak, this one comes into effect when the outbreak gets serious. Also:

Official ruling: ... There is no overlap, no duplication, and no contradiction of GAR#53 in this proposal as currently written.

That ruling was for a previous draft. You have made changes since then. It is not unreasonable to expect a new legality challenge.

[Umeria]

That resolution covers the incipient stages of an outbreak, this one comes into effect when the outbreak gets serious. Also:

That ruling was for a previous draft. You have made changes since then. It is not unreasonable to expect a new legality challenge.

My proposal still only comes into effect when the outbreak becomes serious. I did remove the 50% infection rate thing from the definitions clause, but it still says the epidemic has to "significantly decrease the nation's well being and/or functioning". At that point, the epidemic is no longer in the incipient stages.

[Kryozerkia]

That ruling was for a previous draft. You have made changes since then. It is not unreasonable to expect a new legality challenge.

My proposal still only comes into effect when the outbreak becomes serious. I did remove the 50% infection rate thing from the definitions clause, but it still says the epidemic has to "significantly decrease the nation's well being and/or functioning". At that point, the epidemic is no longer in the incipient stages.

It is your proposal, but I could reasonably foresee someone using that as a launching pad for a repeal.

[Umeria]

My proposal still only comes into effect when the outbreak becomes serious. I did remove the 50% infection rate thing from the definitions clause, but it still says the epidemic has to "significantly decrease the nation's well being and/or functioning". At that point, the epidemic is no longer in the incipient stages.

It is your proposal, but I could reasonably foresee someone using that as a launching pad for a repeal.

Well, they can't say it duplicates GAR#53, because if it did it would have been removed. GAR#53 already covers the incipient stages of an epidemic, so they can't say that the quarantines are created too late. I do not see the repeal hook.

[Kryozerkia]

It is your proposal, but I could reasonably foresee someone using that as a launching pad for a repeal.

Well, they can't say it duplicates GAR#53, because if it did it would have been removed. GAR#53 already covers the incipient stages of an epidemic, so they can't say that the quarantines are created too late. I do not see the repeal hook.

Don't underestimate the determination of some delegates and ambassadors when it comes to nitpicking language.

[Umeria]

Well, they can't say it duplicates GAR#53, because if it did it would have been removed. GAR#53 already covers the incipient stages of an epidemic, so they can't say that the quarantines are created too late. I do not see the repeal hook.

Don't underestimate the determination of some delegates and ambassadors when it comes to nitpicking language.

If someone does start a repeal effort, then I will be ready with counterarguments.

[Araraukar]

Don't underestimate the determination of some delegates and ambassadors when it comes to nitpicking language.

If someone does start a repeal effort, then I will be ready with counterarguments.

OOC: Unfortunately I agree with Kryo here - and heck, I've been saying all along that this proposal is unnecessary, as what existing legislation doesn't cover, reasonable nations would be doing on their own anyway. I'd suggest doing a legality ruling request ASAP, since you're likely to hit quorum this time around. GHR is probably the best.

[Umeria]

If someone does start a repeal effort, then I will be ready with counterarguments.

OOC: Unfortunately I agree with Kryo here - and heck, I've been saying all along that this proposal is unnecessary, as what existing legislation doesn't cover, reasonable nations would be doing on their own anyway. I'd suggest doing a legality ruling request ASAP, since you're likely to hit quorum this time around. GHR is probably the best.

OOC: The last time I submitted a GHR for a legality request, the response was "We recommend you seek assistance from the regulars in the GA Forum because not all Game Moderators are familiar with the inner workings of the General Assembly and its subtle nuances." Is that going to happen again?

[Kryozerkia]

OOC: Unfortunately I agree with Kryo here - and heck, I've been saying all along that this proposal is unnecessary, as what existing legislation doesn't cover, reasonable nations would be doing on their own anyway. I'd suggest doing a legality ruling request ASAP, since you're likely to hit quorum this time around. GHR is probably the best.

OOC: The last time I submitted a GHR for a legality request, the response was "We recommend you seek assistance from the regulars in the GA Forum because not all Game Moderators are familiar with the inner workings of the General Assembly and its subtle nuances." Is that going to happen again?

You're nearing the end of the road. Your proposal has evolved and gone through a few drafts since that original request. Your original request was for the entire proposal. You've clearly worked with the others here to improve it. If/when you submit your legality check request, you should consider including specific questions.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: These objections based on section 3d of GAR#53 are a nonsense. Referring to "a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages", GAR#53 merely "strongly urges ... quarantining infected individuals". This proposal looks at a stage of an outbreak far beyond this when an epidemic of a disease threatens "the nation's functioning and/or well-being" and then imposes a requirement that the infected individuals be quarantined.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: If there were genuine legality concerns about this draft, why weren't they brought up before submission? The author has already worked their socks off drafting this proposal, so I don't see why they should have to go through the trouble of doing it all again.

[Araraukar]

OOC: If there were genuine legality concerns about this draft, why weren't they brought up before submission?

OOC: They were. And more than once the reference to the old ruling was made as a justification for it being legal and needed. We all might've taken that to be still applicable, though I can't remember there having been contradictions/major duplication (minor duplication has been repeatedly deemed okay) that I could see between the previous legislation and the draft that got submitted. In case you haven't noticed, I've tried to find faults in the proposal all along.

I may have missed something, of course - I don't claim to be infallible.

EDIT: You've reached queue. Now hope that you'll keep it until next game update!

[Topid]

OOC: You should have waited 7 weeks or so in order for this to go to vote before the Zombie outbreak.

[The Chittering Darkness]

The Chittering Darkness will NOT endorse outside regulations which restrict moment of its own citizens. If we have an epidemic, we can take care of it on our own darn terms.

[The Sky Pineapple]

"1) Tasks the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define as a "serious disease" any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease;"
So a disease is specified by this law if it needs to be quarantined, and a disease needs to be quarantined if it is specified by this law? The Sky Pineapple came here to vote on laws, not textbook examples of circular reasoning. Our delegation is frankly insulted by how vague and poorly written this doctrine is, and has therefore decided to vote against it.