[Proposal]Repeal "Access to Life-Saving Drugs"

[Newaygo]

Repeal "Access to Life-Saving Drugs"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#41

Proposed by: Bitely

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #41: Access to Life-Saving Drugs (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING the roll RESOLUTION # 41 played in improving health through Life-saving medications;

PRAISING the World Health Authority for advancements in medical research and vaccine breakthroughs;

REALIZING that high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines are not necessarily high-quality;

ACKNOWLEDGING that resolution #41 section 1 requires the World Health Authority to buy high-cost medications and vaccines;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING the need for the WHA to have access to high-quality medications and vaccines without the lengthy negotiation process;

MOVED to action The General Assembly hereby repeals RESOLUTION # 41

Approvals: 2 (Lesser Whiteside, The Brotherhood of Kyro)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 85 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 7 hours

What's the WAD consensus on this?

[Caracasus]

OOC: Link to legislation for the ease of ambassadors viewtopic.php?p=424#p424


We are not very well disposed to repeals of legislation that aim to improve healthcare and the lives of those in poorer nations, so please bear this in mind.

We have issues with the following justifications for your repeal.

REALIZING that high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines are not necessarily high-quality;

ACKNOWLEDGING that resolution #41 section 1 requires the World Health Authority to buy high-cost medications and vaccines;

From the resolution under repeal:

1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.

It appears clear to us that in this instance, qualified WHA members will be negotiating the price of vaccinations and essential medicines. This should result in WHA selecting the cheapest, and most effective medicines possible. We do not feel that speculation regarding the effectiveness of the WHA is basis for repeal of this resolution.

From the repeal:

ACKNOWLEDGING that resolution #41 section 1 requires the World Health Authority to buy high-cost medications and vaccines;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING the need for the WHA to have access to high-quality medications and vaccines without the lengthy negotiation process;

Again, we do not see any way around the lengthy negotiation process. If there is one, we would like to see a resolution drafted ready for replacement. Until such time we shall not support this repeal at all.

In addition, the original legislation creates a research and development division within the WHA specifically tasked with devising cures for illnesses that effect poorer populations where no concerted private effort has gone into developing a cure.


From the motto of the World Assembly: Improving the world one resolution at a time

We feel that access to life saving drugs is perhaps one of the strongest pieces of legislation passed by this assembly that improves the world. We would not vote for a repeal unless something significantly better is drafted.

[Volney (Ancient)]

Repeal "Access to Life-Saving Drugs"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.


Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#41

Proposed by: Bitely

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #41: Access to Life-Saving Drugs (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: NOTING the roll RESOLUTION # 41 played in improving health through Life-saving medications;

PRAISING the World Health Authority for advancements in medical research and vaccine breakthroughs;

REALIZING that high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines are not necessarily high-quality;

ACKNOWLEDGING that resolution #41 section 1 requires the World Health Authority to buy high-cost medications and vaccines;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING the need for the WHA to have access to high-quality medications and vaccines without the lengthy negotiation process;

MOVED to action The General Assembly hereby repeals RESOLUTION # 41

Approvals: 2 (Lesser Whiteside, The Brotherhood of Kyro)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 85 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 7 hours

What's the WAD consensus on this?

Why would #41 state that the WA HAS to buy high cost products? Shouldn't they be required to buy high quality products?

So if a cure is dirt cheap but a "bandaid" is high-cost then according to #41 the WA would have to choose the "bandaid" and then negotiate a price that could vary well be higher than the cure!

[Sobaira]

Why would #41 state that the WA HAS to buy high cost products? Shouldn't they be required to buy high quality products?

So if a cure is dirt cheap but a "bandaid" is high-cost then according to #41 the WA would have to choose the "bandaid" and then negotiate a price that could vary well be higher than the cure!

OOC: It doesn't say that it has to.

1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.

Emphasis mine. In the case where the cure is "dirt cheap" but a "bandaid" is high-cost then the WA doesn't have to choose the "bandaid", assuming that the cure at minimal helps conditions as much as the "bandaid" which judging by your scare quotes the cure does significantly more than said. This is because it would be unnecessary to acquire the "bandaid" in light of the "dirt cheap" cure.

1. is in place not to enforce the use of the WHA's budget towards exclusively high cost treatments, but to help the WHA with such treatments when they're the only ones of significant quality necessary for a situation; for the times that necessary, not even simply 'high', quality does not exist outside of high cost.

[Bitely]

Why would #41 state that the WA HAS to buy high cost products? Shouldn't they be required to buy high quality products?

So if a cure is dirt cheap but a "bandaid" is high-cost then according to #41 the WA would have to choose the "bandaid" and then negotiate a price that could vary well be higher than the cure!

OOC: It doesn't say that it has to.

1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.

Emphasis mine. In the case where the cure is "dirt cheap" but a "bandaid" is high-cost then the WA doesn't have to choose the "bandaid", assuming that the cure at minimal helps conditions as much as the "bandaid" which judging by your scare quotes the cure does significantly more than said. This is because it would be unnecessary to acquire the "bandaid" in light of the "dirt cheap" cure.

1. is in place not to enforce the use of the WHA's budget towards exclusively high cost treatments, but to help the WHA with such treatments when they're the only ones of significant quality necessary for a situation; for the times that necessary, not even simply 'high', quality does not exist outside of high cost.

4) The WHA shall, through statistical analysis, identify diseases that affect mainly the poorest populations, diseases for which there have not been as yet serious attempts at a research for a cure or a vaccine.

As a WAD I agree with the need to help the poor. Health is indeed vital for everyone rich or poor,
that's why I believe that GA "Access to Life-Saving Drugs" should be repealed. Section 1 requires high cost,NOT high quality.
Section 4 demands the WHA to help "mainly the poorest populations".(what about the middle class and rich populations?)
So it seems that this resolution is not abiding by the WA principles of equality for all; instead it promotes inequity and bias. Yes it seems that this resolution takes funds from the WA for "mainly the poorest". In affect it seems like the old saying:"steal from the rich to feed the poor".
It is not this institutions job to play Robinhood.
We need a replacement for #41 that helps the entire world and doesn't show bias to anyone rich or poor.
As we all know before we can pass another bill through the WA the old one must be repealed.

[Sobaira]

4) The WHA shall, through statistical analysis, identify diseases that affect mainly the poorest populations, diseases for which there have not been as yet serious attempts at a research for a cure or a vaccine.

As a WAD I agree with the need to help the poor. Health is indeed vital for everyone rich or poor,
that's why I believe that GA "Access to Life-Saving Drugs" should be repealed. Section 1 requires high cost,NOT high quality.
Section 4 demands the WHA to help "mainly the poorest populations".(what about the middle class and rich populations?)
So it seems that this resolution is not abiding by the WA principles of equality for all; instead it promotes inequity and bias. Yes it seems that this resolution takes funds from the WA for "mainly the poorest". In affect it seems like the old saying:"steal from the rich to feed the poor".
It is not this institutions job to play Robinhood.
We need a replacement for #41 that helps the entire world and doesn't show bias to anyone rich or poor.
As we all know before we can pass another bill through the WA the old one must be repealed.

OOC: While I have already expressed my disagreement with what you believe Section 1 says in response to another, I do concede that your point on 4 is likely your best bet (For however little 'best bet' is worth in this situation) to get something done on a repeal.

Is it strong enough for a repeal? I don't think so; perhaps if you had set up a repeal and replace thing with the replace draft up and garnering favourable attention from other delegates. Lacking said, I do not feel that a repeal will be able to gain enough support for it to pass. Arguments can easily be made that 'Robin-hooding' is not only within rightful WA capacity but within its principles; there are multiple types of equality, after all.

With the current more liberal leanings I've seen amongst the delegates, I do not feel as if a repeal is viable at this time, specifically in the case of lacking an exceedingly strong replacement resolution ready to push forward. Personally, you'd need a damned good replacement to show off before you'd get my vote on the repeal of this resolution, but I'm only playing one delegate.

[Caracasus]

4) The WHA shall, through statistical analysis, identify diseases that affect mainly the poorest populations, diseases for which there have not been as yet serious attempts at a research for a cure or a vaccine.

As a WAD I agree with the need to help the poor. Health is indeed vital for everyone rich or poor,
that's why I believe that GA "Access to Life-Saving Drugs" should be repealed. Section 1 requires high cost,NOT high quality.
Section 4 demands the WHA to help "mainly the poorest populations".(what about the middle class and rich populations?)
So it seems that this resolution is not abiding by the WA principles of equality for all; instead it promotes inequity and bias. Yes it seems that this resolution takes funds from the WA for "mainly the poorest". In affect it seems like the old saying:"steal from the rich to feed the poor".
It is not this institutions job to play Robinhood.
We need a replacement for #41 that helps the entire world and doesn't show bias to anyone rich or poor.
As we all know before we can pass another bill through the WA the old one must be repealed.

We believe In this instance, "Mainly the poorest populations" refers to nations where there are no funds at all for the most basic of medications. This is not some sort of plan for wealth redistribution, it is about ensuring that the very poorest in the world receive adequate access to basic medical treatments.

If you were to pass a resolution that "doesn't show bias to anyone rich or poor" in this area, you would be wasting billions in funds; richer nations and individuals do not need access to life saving drugs - they already have access to life saving drugs.

We believe that you have misunderstood equality for all at a fundamental level. Equality is not about treating everyone the same way - it is about ensuring that everyone can operate on something of a level playing field. For example, if we were to produce minutes of WA meetings for our citizens, we would make available minutes of the meetings in the form of audio recordings and braille, for citizens who are deaf or blind. We would not, however, give every citizen audio recordings or braille transcripts as they would simply not be needed by those who were not blind, deaf or illiterate.

[Sobaira]

OOC: Well put.

[Caracasus]

Bloody formatting! We thank you for bringing this to our attention ambassador.

[Sobaira]

Bloody formatting! We thank you for bringing this to our attention ambassador.

OOC: Oh crap, I think I was accidentally snarky there, after rereading what I said. I was attempting to be sincere when I said you put it well! As new as I am I don't think I'm yet in the spot to be snarky intentionally; I'm not so bold... yet.

[Caracasus]

We wouldn't worry about that if we were you ambassador - a little banter and snark is to be expected in the WA!

[Sobaira]

We wouldn't worry about that if we were you ambassador - a little banter and snark is to be expected in the WA!

OOC: In that case it was totally intentional!

[Alexandrian Grand Pacific]

At the very least, scrap the submitted draft so the following can be corrected: "REALIZING that high-cost life-saving medicmedications sayations and vaccines are not necessarily high-quality;"

[Caracasus]

We cannot believe that this proposal has got quite as many endorsements as it has, in spite of the fact that it is factually incorrect in several places.

Argument: NOTING the role RESOLUTION # 41 played in improving health through Life-saving medications;

PRAISING the World Health Authority for advancements in medical research and vaccine breakthroughs;

REALIZING that high-cost life-saving medicmedications sayations and vaccines are not necessarily high-quality;

Whilst this is factually correct, it misrepresents the actual responsibilities of the WHA and the legislation. The legislation calls for purchasing high-cost medicine when necessary. A high cost vaccine or medicine that is not high quality would not be bought by the WHA

ACKNOWLEDGING that resolution #41 section 1 requires the World Health Authority to buy high-cost medications and vaccines;

Um, no. Whilst factually correct, the inferred meaning here - that the WA is forced to purchase any manor of high-cost medicines is, we believe dishonest. - it does not do this. It requires the WHA to: (Emphasis ours)

(From original legislation under repeal) 1) An appropriate part of World Health Authority’s budget shall be directed for buying and distributing, when and where necessary, high-cost life-saving medications and vaccines. Negotiations shall take place between the agencies and patent holders so as to achieve a minimum acceptable price, one that does not hamper the industries affected nor further research, nor depletes the WA economic resources or otherwise adversely impacts the multitude of activities dependant on WA funding.

The WHA is required, by this legislation to purchase life saving medications and vaccines - and to negotiate lower prices where possible. This is hardly writing a blank cheque to finance any medication ever.

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that WA resolution #41 section 3 a is in violation of resolution #2 section iii
Article 8 § which states:"Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State."

This is a basic misunderstanding of the use of the word equality in this context. Equality in the context of resolution #2 implies that every nation state is treated equally under WA law. access to live-saving drugs does not violate this at all. Developed nations where citizens have access to life-saving drugs do not receive support under this legislation in the same way as poorer nations because they do not need it

We would ask that the author of this travesty at least attempts to defend their attempt to repeal this legislation. We would also hope that nations read the debate regarding repeals before endorsing them.