NationStates

Defwa wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This entire discussion is asinine.

Your apparent surprise at this is surprising

More wishful thinking, really. Maybe, if I look up at the sky and try real hard, I can make other ambassadors think before they speak.

Then I look at my own delegation's record on that and laugh.

...it passes the time. That and whiskey.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Defwa wrote:Your apparent surprise at this is surprising

More wishful thinking, really. Maybe, if I look up at the sky and try real hard, I can make other ambassadors think before they speak.

Then I look at my own delegation's record on that and laugh.

...it passes the time. That and whiskey.

"Who's passing whiskey? Pass some over here! Unless treating the building aneurism with booze counts as a medical procedure, in which case it's unreasonable to expect you to be able to handle that."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Who's passing whiskey? Pass some over here! Unless treating the building aneurism with booze counts as a medical procedure, in which case it's unreasonable to expect you to be able to handle that."

I think if it were a medical procedure this pack of lushes would've made a shining beacon of open and responsive government by now; new proposals would be carried in by spell-checking bluebirds who only poop on repealed legislation, and defenestrations would become a silly amusement, judged like figure skating, rather than a grim necessity.

Steph opens the satchel that passes for her "briefcase" and roots around in it with both hands for a few seconds, then comes up with a small bottle.

Until that intern comes back with the porta-bar, this is all I got. And no ice, either. But hey.

Steph breaks the purple wax on the bottle of Laker's Lark and removes the cap. Takes a swig and passes it over.

Little more pretentious than I usually go for, but bourbon's bourbon.

So: now that this is also on the table, does the author care to address the comments made? Or just sit and have a drink?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Who's passing whiskey? Pass some over here! Unless treating the building aneurism with booze counts as a medical procedure, in which case it's unreasonable to expect you to be able to handle that."

I think if it were a medical procedure this pack of lushes would've made a shining beacon of open and responsive government by now; new proposals would be carried in by spell-checking bluebirds who only poop on repealed legislation, and defenestrations would become a silly amusement, judged like figure skating, rather than a grim necessity.

Steph opens the satchel that passes for her "briefcase" and roots around in it with both hands for a few seconds, then comes up with a small bottle.

Until that intern comes back with the porta-bar, this is all I got. And no ice, either. But hey.

Steph breaks the purple wax on the bottle of Laker's Lark and removes the cap. Takes a swig and passes it over.

Little more pretentious than I usually go for, but bourbon's bourbon.

So: now that this is also on the table, does the author care to address the comments made? Or just sit and have a drink?

I have nearly no time for this right now, so... later.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:defenestrations would become a silly amusement, judged like figure skating

Happens sometimes.

^_^

Old Hope wrote:I have nearly no time for this right now, so... later.

"I have a better idea: give up and preserve what little political credibility you have left. Every single point you've made on this has been refuted. With absurd ease. This has no chance."

Louisistan wrote:

Jackonia wrote: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?

Now, I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one one TV, but I'm fairly certain that zero illnesses are curable by vaccine. Vaccines are used to prevent a person from getting the illness in the first place, not as a treatment for one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Flibbleites wrote:

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

Now, I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one one TV, but I'm fairly certain that zero illnesses are curable by vaccine. Vaccines are used to prevent a person from getting the illness in the first place, not as a treatment for one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Indeed.

Is there a prominent example of any recognized emergency healthcare technique that worsens the spread of an infectious disease?

Divitaen wrote:Is there a prominent example of any recognized emergency healthcare technique that worsens the spread of an infectious disease?

Probably poorly employed techniques by improperly trained healthcare workers?

In all seriousness, replacing PRA is on my eventual to-do list, but the "issues" listed within this repeal text are overblown if not completely wrong. I cannot support this repeal at this time.

-Adele Hale
WA Ambassador for Mousebumples

Mousebumples wrote:

Divitaen wrote:Is there a prominent example of any recognized emergency healthcare technique that worsens the spread of an infectious disease?

Probably poorly employed techniques by improperly trained healthcare workers?

In all seriousness, replacing PRA is on my eventual to-do list, but the "issues" listed within this repeal text are overblown if not completely wrong. I cannot support this repeal at this time.

-Adele Hale
WA Ambassador for Mousebumples

That's.....strange. I can understand that nations would want to allow patients the choice to refuse even life-saving medical treatment, and there should be legislation protecting that right to patient autonomy, but don't most medical boards ban dangerous or debilitating medical treatments? I mean, from a "do no harm" perspective dangerous medical practices tend to be unlicensed right, so doesn't that make this repeal moot?

Divitaen wrote:

Mousebumples wrote:Probably poorly employed techniques by improperly trained healthcare workers?

In all seriousness, replacing PRA is on my eventual to-do list, but the "issues" listed within this repeal text are overblown if not completely wrong. I cannot support this repeal at this time.

-Adele Hale
WA Ambassador for Mousebumples

That's.....strange. I can understand that nations would want to allow patients the choice to refuse even life-saving medical treatment, and there should be legislation protecting that right to patient autonomy, but don't most medical boards ban dangerous or debilitating medical treatments? I mean, from a "do no harm" perspective dangerous medical practices tend to be unlicensed right, so doesn't that make this repeal moot?

"I imagine not every nation has such an oath for their medical professionals."

"Even with PRA / Medical Research Ethics Act, there's still definitely scope for more international law on medical ethics."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Secretary General of the Increasingly Desperate Campaign To Pass Literally Any Resolution In The New Health Category

Flibbleites wrote:

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

Now, I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one one TV, but I'm fairly certain that zero illnesses are curable by vaccine. Vaccines are used to prevent a person from getting the illness in the first place, not as a treatment for one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Felix Dzerzhinsky stops what he is doing, walks over and heartily slaps Bob Flibble on the back.

"Welcome back my friend!"

Mousebumples wrote:In all seriousness, replacing PRA is on my eventual to-do list,

There was a time when I might have supported a repeal/replace of PRA, even though I have never quite understood your reasons for wanting to do so. However, my thoughts on this matter have evolved somewhat over the past year or so, and now I would quite forcefully oppose such an effort.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee for State Security