[Draft] Repeal Patient's Rights Act

[Old Hope]

Acknowledging the good intent of GAR#29, the Patient's Rights Act,
Noting that the Patients Rights Act requires states to provide emergency treatment
Further noting that this even applies to hazardous, highly infective diseases with a potential to wipe out a large part of the population
Apalled that treatment to be given applies to situations where no suitable illness prevention methods exist, and where any treatment would likely spread the disease,
Seeing the core flaw of this resolution in the fact that it makes an exception for patients refusing treatment if that would harm others, but none for patients demanding treatment that would harm others,
Concluding that this resolution needs to be removed,
the World Assembly repeals the Patients Rights Act, GAR#29.

[Separatist Peoples]

"One can enforce a quarantine and provide treatment. The two are not exclusive. Your only argument is based on an incorrect premise."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Aww. I was looking forward to the Ragnarök of abortion debates.

[Grays Harbor]

Not a sufficient argument for repeal.

[Defwa]

Aww. I was looking forward to the Ragnarök of abortion debates.

We could use a good controversy in here.

[Bananaistan]

Further noting that this even applies to hazardous, highly infective diseases with a potential to wipe out a large part of the population
............
Concluding that this resolution needs to be removed,

I think you need to expand significantly between those two clauses before you'd have anything like a plausible argument.

Aww. I was looking forward to the Ragnarök of abortion debates.

We could use a good controversy in here.

Agreed, it's been far too quite recently.

[Chester Pearson]

Concluding that this resolution needs to be removed,

Equates to I don't like it, so we need to repeal it.

[Old Hope]

Further noting that this even applies to hazardous, highly infective diseases with a potential to wipe out a large part of the population
............
Concluding that this resolution needs to be removed,

I think you need to expand significantly between those two clauses before you'd have anything like a plausible argument.

We could use a good controversy in here.

Agreed, it's been far too quite recently.

I expanded it a bit. Does it look better now, or do I need more or other arguments?
And what is about all that talk about abortion debates?

[Ainocra]

I'm not convinced

[Cardoness]

Just because there is no cure for a disease does not mean you can't treat the patient who has it. Nor does the resolution require that a patient be treated without proper precautions being taken to prevent the spread of the disease to others. Besides, it would be more dangerous to society as a whole to forgo treating such a case.

[Old Hope]

Just because there is no cure for a disease does not mean you can't treat the patient who has it. Nor does the resolution require that a patient be treated without proper precautions being taken to prevent the spread of the disease to others. Besides, it would be more dangerous to society as a whole to forgo treating such a case.

But you have to treat a patient even if no proper precautions exist...

[Separatist Peoples]

Just because there is no cure for a disease does not mean you can't treat the patient who has it. Nor does the resolution require that a patient be treated without proper precautions being taken to prevent the spread of the disease to others. Besides, it would be more dangerous to society as a whole to forgo treating such a case.

But you have to treat a patient even if no proper precautions exist...

"And thanks to numerous other resolutions on the topic, assistance through the Epidemic Response Act and Quality in Health Services is very easily obtainable."

[Old Hope]

But you have to treat a patient even if no proper precautions exist...

"And thanks to numerous other resolutions on the topic, assistance through the Epidemic Response Act and Quality in Health Services is very easily obtainable."

So you can treat every single patient in a big epidemic safely? Even with international aid...

[Separatist Peoples]

"And thanks to numerous other resolutions on the topic, assistance through the Epidemic Response Act and Quality in Health Services is very easily obtainable."

So you can treat every single patient in a big epidemic safely? Even with international aid...

"Ambassador, don't be deliberately obtuse. There are highly effective precautions one can take. Like face masks, disinfectant, sterile equipment, latex gloves, etc., all of which is incredibly simple to acquire with Intenational assistance. Pretending that those magically don't work only makes you look worse, not your proposal better."

[Defwa]

Just because there is no cure for a disease does not mean you can't treat the patient who has it. Nor does the resolution require that a patient be treated without proper precautions being taken to prevent the spread of the disease to others. Besides, it would be more dangerous to society as a whole to forgo treating such a case.

But you have to treat a patient even if no proper precautions exist...

No proper precautions? I'd like to know about this impossible to cure, impossible to prevent, impossible to avoid super disease. If only to figure out how it hasn't wiped out humanity yet.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Your argument is totally specious, and is akin to arguing that a plague of post-operative infections is sweeping the WA because surgeons are constantly performing operations despite not having sterilised their equipment, because they are forced to deliver emergency treatment. You're going to have to do a little better to establish the harm principle.

If you are concerned about this sort of thing, though, why not write a proposal on international medical facilitation? Even with the Epidemic Response Act there's still plenty of scope for legislation on infection control, and a whole new unused category set with which to do it.

[Old Hope]

So you can treat every single patient in a big epidemic safely? Even with international aid...

"Ambassador, don't be deliberately obtuse. There are highly effective precautions one can take. Like face masks, disinfectant, sterile equipment, latex gloves, etc., all of which is incredibly simple to acquire with Intenational assistance. Pretending that those magically don't work only makes you look worse, not your proposal better."

Are you able to treat - let's say...10 million infected persons with that?
I might have a second argument for a repeal- I'll look at that again... tomorrow.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, don't be deliberately obtuse. There are highly effective precautions one can take. Like face masks, disinfectant, sterile equipment, latex gloves, etc., all of which is incredibly simple to acquire with Intenational assistance. Pretending that those magically don't work only makes you look worse, not your proposal better."

Are you able to treat - let's say...10 million infected persons with that?
I might have a second argument for a repeal- I'll look at that again... tomorrow.

"Yes. We can. It's called flu season, and national health service do that literally every day using the same basic precautions: gloves, sterilized tools, and face masks. Why wouldn't international assistance make that even easier, exactly? Even advanced techniques can be made economically viable through quarantining and organized treatment and triage. I'm convinced that you know literally nothing about public health, ambassador, and in your ignorance, are trying to remove the most important patients advocacy law on the books. At least have the decency to learn about your own subject matter before blathering on about it, ambassador."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Link to target resolution, for convenience and courtesy's sake.

None of the terrifying doomsday scenarios you're entertaining is in any way exacerbated by the requirements of the target resolution, ambassador. Medicine is not a zero-sum game, sir. Requiring that patients be given a certain standard of care and respect does not detract from the care given to other patients except in once in a lifetime disastrous circumstances; and in such circumstances doctors will prioritize their commitments appropriately, Patient's Rights Act or no Patient's Rights Act. The presence of patients' rights doesn't interfere with others' care except when rationing is necessary, but in that situation doctors are allocating care the most impactful way they can (which just so happens to be the way that accords best with the Act in question).

The only reason to repeal this would be if it weren't doing the job (protecting patients' rights) it says it does. But you haven't come close to making that case.

[Bears Armed]

Agreed, it's been far too quite recently.

"quite" what?

[Jackonia]

I think that before trying to treat a patient, there needs to be Scientific collaboration in order to develop a vaccine. Accepting infected people into a region with insufficient medical and/or Scientific facilities would only spread the disease in question further. Supplying a Country with medical workers, wearing appropriate clothing is a good move to take, but the potential movement of infected people should be limited wherever possible. Locking borders between Nations, what I call National Quarantine, could help contain the rate of infection. I see the logic in the argument set out by the repeal.

[Defwa]

I think that before trying to treat a patient, there needs to be Scientific collaboration in order to develop a vaccine. Accepting infected people into a region with insufficient medical and/or Scientific facilities would only spread the disease in question further. Supplying a Country with medical workers, wearing appropriate clothing is a good move to take, but the potential movement of infected people should be limited wherever possible. Locking borders between Nations, what I call National Quarantine, could help contain the rate of infection. I see the logic in the argument set out by the repeal.

The patient's rights act doesn't require you take and care for diseased immigrants.

The epidemic response act already does the things you want.

[Louisistan]

I think that before trying to treat a patient, there needs to be Scientific collaboration in order to develop a vaccine.

Ambassador, you do realise that not all illnesses are curable by a vaccine?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I think that before trying to treat a patient, there needs to be Scientific collaboration in order to develop a vaccine.

Ambassador, you do realise that not all illnesses are curable by a vaccine?

And not only that, but in fact some illnesses for which vaccines or other "curative" medicines are unavailable can be driven off by the patient's own immune system if the other hallmarks of medical treatment are faithfully administered! You know, bed rest, fluids, nutrition... the shit people did before vaccines were invented, and which are still done in conjunction with pharmaceutical treatments. This entire discussion is asinine.

[Defwa]

Ambassador, you do realise that not all illnesses are curable by a vaccine?

And not only that, but in fact some illnesses for which vaccines or other "curative" medicines are unavailable can be driven off by the patient's own immune system if the other hallmarks of medical treatment are faithfully administered! You know, bed rest, fluids, nutrition... the shit people did before vaccines were invented, and which are still done in conjunction with pharmaceutical treatments. This entire discussion is asinine.

Your apparent surprise at this is surprising