[WITHDRAWN] Repeal "Patient's Rights Act"

[Auralia]

We'll need a replacement for this resolution, and I don't intend on submitting this repeal until one is ready. I might author it if nobody else is interested.

Repeal "Patient's Rights Act"
Category: Repeal

Noting that the first clause of General Assembly Resolution #29, "Patient's Rights Act", states that "...a physician or qualified caregiver may provide [lifesaving medical] treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent",

Worried that the presence of the word "may" in this clause makes it optional, thereby permitting nations to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

Concered that the same word in the same clause also allows physicians or caregivers to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

Further noting that the fourth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "in non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions",

Distressed that this clause allows nations to force a patient to receive non-essential, unwanted and potentially dangerous medical treatment without the consent of their legal guardian or next-of-kin,

Further noting that the eighth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "for the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act",

Disturbed that the presence of the word "may" in this clause again makes it optional, thereby allowing nations to invalidate the right of parents and caregivers to determine the appropriate treatment for their children,

The General Assembly,

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #29, "Patient's Rights Act".

[Armondio]

The People's Republic of Armondio give the nation of Auralia their FULL SUPPORT of this repeal.

[Linux and the X]

Disturbed that the presence of the word "may" in this clause allows nations to invalidate the right of parents and caregivers to determine the appropriate treatment for their children,

This seems to need rewriting as it seems prone to misinterpretation. We suggest the following wording

Disturbed that this clause can be interpreted as denying agency to a class of patients in violation of the ideals of both the Patients Rights Act itself and the concept of equal protection,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

As this would only serve to reopen the horrid circumcision "can of worms," the Federal Republic strenuously opposes, and urges all like-minded nations in this Assembly to take action in opposition. Not the least because of the idiotic arguments presented therein: Really? Nations are going to be stupid enough to actively deny power-of-attorney to next of kin...as what? A punishment of some sort? "Sure, we like oppressing our citizens as much as the next tyrannical dictatorship does, but rather than kill or disappear political critics, we prefer to wait until they are medically incapacitated, then we just let their loved ones watch them slowly wither and die in a hospital bed! Bwahahahaha!!!!" Don't really know what to make of the rest of this repeal, except to note that we would much prefer a legal instrument was kept in place allowing the courts to designate somebody else to act in the patient's stead if the patient is clearly incapable of making rational decisions. What would you honestly do if that safeguard wasn't there? Continue allowing mentally incompetent persons to deny beneficial care for themselves?

[Auralia]

Disturbed that the presence of the word "may" in this clause allows nations to invalidate the right of parents and caregivers to determine the appropriate treatment for their children,

This seems to need rewriting as it seems prone to misinterpretation. We suggest the following wording

Disturbed that this clause can be interpreted as denying agency to a class of patients in violation of the ideals of both the Patients Rights Act itself and the concept of equal protection,

What misinterpretation? I'm not sure I even understand your re-write.

As this would only serve to reopen the horrid circumcision "can of worms,"

No, it won't, thanks to Permit Male Circumcision.

Don't really know what to make of the rest of this repeal, except to note that we would much prefer a legal instrument was kept in place allowing the courts to designate somebody else to act in the patient's stead if the patient is clearly incapable of making rational decisions. What would you honestly do if that safeguard wasn't there? Continue allowing mentally incompetent persons to deny beneficial care for themselves?

We would allow the next-of-kin to make decisions regarding non-essential medical treatment, as opposed to granting that power to the state. We would also ban any non-consensual medical treatment that is considered to be unharmful by a qualified physician.

[Linux and the X]

This seems to need rewriting as it seems prone to misinterpretation. We suggest the following wording

What misinterpretation? I'm not sure I even understand your re-write.

The way you wrote it can be misinterpreted as saying parents have some sort of inherent right to control the medical care of their offspring.

[Saliu]

"The Saliuzein Delegacy respectfully opposes the proposed repeal written by the Honorable Delegate from Auralia. The Delegacy believes that General Assembly Resolution number 29 does not stop patients from recieving lifesaving medical treatment, for the word 'may' in the current context indicates that the medical proffessionals have the authority to do so, as the word 'may' is also defined as expressing permission. The Delegacy would also like to note that the 5th Paragraph, starting with 'distressed' is incorrect in saying that Legal Guardians do not have a say in General Assembly Resolution number 29 because in that resolution, section VIII states, 'For the purposes of this legislation, 'patient' may also refer to legal guardian' The Delegacy will not support this proposed repeal on General Assembly Resolution number 29 unless the proposed replacement, which the Delegacy has not been able to see, will be more effective." says Consulate Robyn Pylo adressing the General Assembly.

AGAINST Repeal on GAR 29
GAR 29 not stop patients from recieving medical treatment
Legal Guardians do have a say in medical treatment in GAR 29
WILL NOT supoort the Repeal unless the replacement is more effective

[Auralia]

What misinterpretation? I'm not sure I even understand your re-write.

The way you wrote it can be misinterpreted as saying parents have some sort of inherent right to control the medical care of their offspring.

They do, to some extent. Parents obviously shouldn't be allowed to force their children to undergo harmful procedures, nor prevent them from receiving lifesaving treatment, but aside from that, they should have free reign.

[New Matawan]

The United Socialist States of New Matawan opposes the repeal of Resolution 29.

While New Matawan agrees with Aurelia's distress, completely repealing Resolution 29 would remove all the beneficial factors of the bill, as well as the distressing aspects. A preferred alternative would be to amend Resolution 29 to remove the agonizing word "may", add required consent from a parental guardian to perform life-saving procedures, etc., without changing or removing any of the good aspects of the bill.

[Linux and the X]

The way you wrote it can be misinterpreted as saying parents have some sort of inherent right to control the medical care of their offspring.

They do, to some extent. Parents obviously shouldn't be allowed to force their children to undergo harmful procedures, nor prevent them from receiving lifesaving treatment, but aside from that, they should have free reign.

Oh, sorry. We were assuming that such a disturbing interpretation must surely be wrong. But apparently that's what you meant?
OPPOSED

[Mousebumples]

Also OPPOSED. I have no problems with PRA as presently written.

[Russoslavakia]

The Federal Republic of Russoslavakia is against this change. Revision of this act is unnecessary over a mere technicality and questions moral values of every nation affected.

As it stands: OPPOSED.

[Auralia]

"The Saliuzein Delegacy respectfully opposes the proposed repeal written by the Honorable Delegate from Auralia. The Delegacy believes that General Assembly Resolution number 29 does not stop patients from recieving lifesaving medical treatment, for the word 'may' in the current context indicates that the medical proffessionals have the authority to do so, as the word 'may' is also defined as expressing permission. The Delegacy would also like to note that the 5th Paragraph, starting with 'distressed' is incorrect in saying that Legal Guardians do not have a say in General Assembly Resolution number 29 because in that resolution, section VIII states, 'For the purposes of this legislation, 'patient' may also refer to legal guardian'

In either of those cases, "may" can be interpreted in such a way that both clauses are optional. This interpretation is shared by Mousebumples, at least for the latter clause.

The Delegacy will not support this proposed repeal on General Assembly Resolution number 29 unless the proposed replacement, which the Delegacy has not been able to see, will be more effective." says Consulate Robyn Pylo adressing the General Assembly.

Fair enough. As I said above, I don't plan on submitting this until I have an effective replacement.

The United Socialist States of New Matawan opposes the repeal of Resolution 29.

While New Matawan agrees with Aurelia's distress, completely repealing Resolution 29 would remove all the beneficial factors of the bill, as well as the distressing aspects. A preferred alternative would be to amend Resolution 29 to remove the agonizing word "may", add required consent from a parental guardian to perform life-saving procedures, etc., without changing or removing any of the good aspects of the bill.

The only way to "amend" a resolution is to repeal it and pass a replacement, which is exactly what I plan on doing.

Oh, sorry. We were assuming that such a disturbing interpretation must surely be wrong. But apparently that's what you meant?
OPPOSED

I can't say that I'm surprised.

Also OPPOSED. I have no problems with PRA as presently written.

Indeed. As a NatSov, I'm sure you're quite happy that any clause in the PRA which uses the word "may" is actually optional.

The Federal Republic of Russoslavakia is against this change. Revision of this act is unnecessary over a mere technicality and questions moral values of every nation affected.

As it stands: OPPOSED.

I wouldn't call the issue a mere "technicality". As written, the resolution doesn't protect patients who are unable to grant consent, nor does it allow parents to make medical decisions for their children - this is an unacceptable situation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

a mere technicality

Exactly. There are at least two dozen standing resolutions out there that are doing active harm to member states, and yet the pencilnecks in this self-important chatterbox do nothing about it, while needless repeals on the most legalistic, nonsensical grounds are debated in this chamber all the time. For once, be proactive and do something to help the members of this body overburdened with international regulations and red tape, instead of removing perfectly decent resolutions with hogwash like, "Oooo! Look! Clause six doesn't specify who the courts can appoint to be guardian to a patient -- that must be an open door to dictatorial oppression! Panic!!!"

[Unibot II]

a mere technicality

Exactly. There are at least two dozen standing resolutions out there that are doing active harm to member states, and yet the pencilnecks in this self-important chatterbox do nothing about it, while needless repeals on the most legalistic, nonsensical grounds are debated in this chamber all the time. For once, be proactive and do something to help the members of this body overburdened with international regulations and red tape, instead of removing perfectly decent resolutions with hogwash like, "Oooo! Look! Clause six doesn't specify who the courts can appoint to be guardian to a patient -- that must be an open door to dictatorial oppression! Panic!!!"

Agreed.

- OPPOSED

[Auralia]

a mere technicality

Exactly. There are at least two dozen standing resolutions out there that are doing active harm to member states, and yet the pencilnecks in this self-important chatterbox do nothing about it, while needless repeals on the most legalistic, nonsensical grounds are debated in this chamber all the time. For once, be proactive and do something to help the members of this body overburdened with international regulations and red tape, instead of removing perfectly decent resolutions with hogwash like, "Oooo! Look! Clause six doesn't specify who the courts can appoint to be guardian to a patient -- that must be an open door to dictatorial oppression! Panic!!!"

The text above contains no real evidence or refutation of the points presented in the repeal. The example you gave isn't even correct.

[Nihon koku]

Further noting that the fourth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "in non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions",

So circumcisions, being non-emergency treatment, can only be given with a legal instrument issued by a court?

[ALMF]

I think the objected to clauses are assental to a pashents bill of rights that isnot disablingly restrictive on regulation

[Auralia]

Further noting that the fourth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "in non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions",

So circumcisions, being non-emergency treatment, can only be given with a legal instrument issued by a court?

I believe so, but only if the patient is unable to grant consent.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Except the part where it states that underage patients may be represented by a parent or legal guardian...and that the clause regarding court-appointed guardians applies to patients "not competent to make decisions"; i.e., crazy people. Look, you can continue to misinterpret this resolution and excessively nitpick the language to make it out to be something it clearly is not, or you can devote your legislative talents to more worthy projects. That was the intent of my previous post: A friendly suggestion, nothing more -- and far wide of any patronizing attempt to "refute" the charges of a fatuous and disingenuous repeal. Take it or leave it.

[Auralia]

Except the part where it states that underage patients may be represented by a parent or legal guardian...and that the clause regarding court-appointed guardians applies to patients "not competent to make decisions"; i.e., crazy people. Look, you can continue to misinterpret this resolution and excessively nitpick the language to make it out to be something it clearly is not, or you can devote your legislative talents to more worthy projects. That was the intent of my previous post: A friendly suggestion, nothing more -- and far wide of any patronizing attempt to "refute" the charges of a fatuous and disingenuous repeal. Take it or leave it.

First, let's deal with the clause about underage patients. While it may seem at first glance that the PRA grants control to a patient or legal guardian, that clearly isn't the case, given resolutions like On Female Genital Mutilation, which directly contradict that clause. There are only two ways out of the issue - either FGM isn't medical treatment, or the presence of the word "may" in the clause makes it optional. Mousebumples shares the latter interpretation. This is a serious problem - the PRA does not actually guarantee a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children.

Second, we have the state making decisions for those "not competent to make decisions". I don't think that just means "crazy people"; it means anyone who can't make a decision, including those who, let's say, are in a coma due to some illness but have no mental health problems. The state should not have the authority to give such a patient whatever treatment it feels is appropriate; it should really be the legal next-of-kin. There's not even a requirement that this "non-emergency treatment" be necessary and beneficial, or at least unharmful.

The reality is that the PRA is full of issues with its consent provisions, and that we need to rethink the way we approach this issue. I've already started on a few clauses for a new resolution:

• Member states reserve the right to determine whether patients who have reached the age of majority in their juridistiction and who are capable of granting consent are entitled to refuse ordinary emergency lifesaving medical treatment or procedures.
• Patients who have reached the age of majority in their juridistiction and who are capable of granting consent are entitled to refuse extra-ordinary emergency lifesaving treatment or procedures, as well as any non-emergency medical treatment or procedure, unless this refusal would endanger the health and safety of others.
• Patients who have not reached the age of majority in their juridistiction or who are incapable of granting consent must undergo any lifesaving emergency medical treatment or procedure.
• Patients who have not reached the age of majority in their juridistiction or who are incapable of granting consent may undergo a non-emergency medical treatment or procedure if and only if:
  • their legal guardian or next-of-kin grants consent, and
  • the treatment or procedure is deemed to be unharmful by a qualified physician.

By the way, this isn't the only project I'm working on.

[Linux and the X]

This is a serious problem - the PRA does not actually guarantee a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children.

Where's the serious problem?

[Alqania]

Noting that the first clause of General Assembly Resolution #29, "Patient's Rights Act", states that "...a physician or qualified caregiver may provide [lifesaving medical] treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent",

Worried that the presence of the word "may" in this clause makes it optional, thereby permitting nations to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

"Yes, the action is optional", Lord Raekevik agreed. "In the sense that this clause gives the caregiver the option. The clause is however not optional for member states; if the action were not allowed in a particular member state, then the caregiver would not be able to provide such treatment and the member state would not be compliant."

Concered that the same word in the same clause also allows physicians or caregivers to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

"Perhaps that would be a valid concern, unless the clause in question started: 'Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment...' The selective quoting in the repeal is rather disingenuous."

Further noting that the fourth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "in non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions",

Distressed that this clause allows nations to force a patient to receive non-essential, unwanted and potentially dangerous medical treatment without the consent of their legal guardian or next-of-kin,

"If the court cannot be trusted, then there is no rule of law and it does not matter in the least what any resolution says. If this resolution allows a court to override a legal guardian or next-of-kin, so what? The court is presumably more competent to make a decision than a legal guardian or next-of-kin and if it is not, then it will refrain from action."

Further noting that the eighth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "for the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act",

Disturbed that the presence of the word "may" in this clause again makes it optional, thereby allowing nations to invalidate the right of parents and caregivers to determine the appropriate treatment for their children,

"As opposed to clause I, this clause actually is optional for member states. That is however a feature. Please show me the resolution where parents and caregivers are given this right or accept that it does not exist on an international level."

"The Queendom might be persuaded to support a repeal of the Patient's Rights Act and we might be tempted to author a replacement for it, but we vehemently oppose this particular repeal and we would not seek the same kind of replacement as the author here is looking for."

[Auralia]

This is a serious problem - the PRA does not actually guarantee a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children.

Where's the serious problem?

Parents have the responsibility of taking care of their children; this includes the responsibility of making medical decisions for their children. Ultimately, children are young and inexperienced, and are therefore incapable of making these decisions for themselves. I'm sure you disagree, though.

Noting that the first clause of General Assembly Resolution #29, "Patient's Rights Act", states that "...a physician or qualified caregiver may provide [lifesaving medical] treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent",

Worried that the presence of the word "may" in this clause makes it optional, thereby permitting nations to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

"Yes, the action is optional", Lord Raekevik agreed. "In the sense that this clause gives the caregiver the option. The clause is however not optional for member states; if the action were not allowed in a particular member state, then the caregiver would not be able to provide such treatment and the member state would not be compliant."

I don't see why a member state would not be in compliance by refusing to give caregivers or physicians the option in the first place. Since the clause states that "a physician or qualified caregiver may provide [lifesaving medical] treatment without the patient’s consent", this implies that they may not provide such treatment as well. It doesn't state that they have to be the ones to make that decision; that can be left up to the state, depending on how one interprets the clause.

Concered that the same word in the same clause also allows physicians or caregivers to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

"Perhaps that would be a valid concern, unless the clause in question started: 'Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment...' The selective quoting in the repeal is rather disingenuous."

Yes, the clause does state that patients have the right to emergency medical treatment. However, they have to exercise that right by consenting to receiving such treatment. The physician or caregiver clearly has the ability to make that decision for them, given the presence of the word "may", which implies that they may not administer treatment for whatever reason.

Further noting that the fourth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "in non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions",

Distressed that this clause allows nations to force a patient to receive non-essential, unwanted and potentially dangerous medical treatment without the consent of their legal guardian or next-of-kin,

"If the court cannot be trusted, then there is no rule of law and it does not matter in the least what any resolution says. If this resolution allows a court to override a legal guardian or next-of-kin, so what? The court is presumably more competent to make a decision than a legal guardian or next-of-kin and if it is not, then it will refrain from action."

I fundamentally disagree. The state is not automatically "more competent to make a decision" than a legal guardian, since extremely personal decisions such as medical treatment should be made by someone who has a close, personal relationship with the patient; that person will have the best interests of the patient at heart, and will know better what the patient would have wanted if they had the ability to grant consent. The state should only be able to take that right away with just cause; the right shouldn't automatically fall to the state, as it does in the PRA.

Further noting that the eighth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "for the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act",

Disturbed that the presence of the word "may" in this clause again makes it optional, thereby allowing nations to invalidate the right of parents and caregivers to determine the appropriate treatment for their children,

"As opposed to clause I, this clause actually is optional for member states. That is however a feature. Please show me the resolution where parents and caregivers are given this right or accept that it does not exist on an international level."

There are many rights that don't yet exist on an international level. This is one of them. Oh, and why is this clause optional for member states, but not clause I? They use the same wording.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Noting that the first clause of General Assembly Resolution #29, "Patient's Rights Act", states that "...a physician or qualified caregiver may provide [lifesaving medical] treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent",

Worried that the presence of the word "may" in this clause makes it optional, thereby permitting nations to prevent patients from receiving lifesaving medical treatment if they are unable to make a decision regarding their care,

Isn't it possible to simply pass a new proposal requiring that physicians or qualified caregivers provide such treatment in such cases?

Further noting that the fourth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "in non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions",

Distressed that this clause allows nations to force a patient to receive non-essential, unwanted and potentially dangerous medical treatment without the consent of their legal guardian or next-of-kin,

Is non-emergency really non-essential?

Further noting that the eighth clause of "Patient's Rights Act" states that "for the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act",

Disturbed that the presence of the word "may" in this clause again makes it optional, thereby allowing nations to invalidate the right of parents and caregivers to determine the appropriate treatment for their children,

We actually approve of that. We would be equally disturbed if nations had to invalidate the right of children to determine their own appropriate treatment.

Other than that, we support the principal of this proposal - something about improving patient's rights.