[SUBMITTED] General Vaccination Act

[Separatist Peoples]

I think he meant giving vaccinations to immunocompromised people, and threw up AIDS and cancer to make an emotional appeal.

Exactly.
It seems to me that the libertarians don't care much for humanity, all they care about is their own personal convenience. This sickens me.

I will be submitting this request in hopes that the rest of the World Assembly values human life as much as our nation does!

OOC: What category would I place this in? Health Care?

"Oh, don't spout that bullshit. Libertarians value the right to choice. They want to be able to make a reasonable and educated decision instead of being told what to do. If you educated a libertarian populace on vaccinations, most would probably choose to undergo them. I don't see why so many ambassadors share the opinion that their citizenry are pathetically incompetent, selfish to a fault, and roundly unintelligent. If that's true, legislate for them in your nation. C.D.S.P. citizens are independent, intelligent, and capable, if a little hard-nosed, and don't require excessive hand-holding."

[Defwa]

Exactly.
It seems to me that the libertarians don't care much for humanity, all they care about is their own personal convenience. This sickens me.

I will be submitting this request in hopes that the rest of the World Assembly values human life as much as our nation does!

OOC: What category would I place this in? Health Care?

"Oh, don't spout that bullshit. Libertarians value the right to choice. They want to be able to make a reasonable and educated decision instead of being told what to do. If you educated a libertarian populace on vaccinations, most would probably choose to undergo them. I don't see why so many ambassadors share the opinion that their citizenry are pathetically incompetent, selfish to a fault, and roundly unintelligent. If that's true, legislate for them in your nation. C.D.S.P. citizens are independent, intelligent, and capable, if a little hard-nosed, and don't require excessive hand-holding."

Sure, most people come to the sensible decision to immunize on their own. But a few people can ruin it for everyone.
if they understand that vaccinations are good and take them anyway and further understand that those that refuse out many others at risk then they should understand the need for a mandate

[Araraukar]

But a few people can ruin it for everyone.

(OOC: Can't help but think whichever mod said "this is why we can't have nice things"... )

Surely not on international scale? In fact, why not just make mandatory to have been vaccinated to travel abroad? That'd make more sense from the international point of view.

Araraukar not being a WA nation, we've had more leeway in arranging our healthcare - vaccinations are mandatory, and anyone trying to leave their children unvaccinated, will lose their parenting licence and thus their children are given to someone sane, and the persons spayed/neutered to avoid them making more chilren without a licence.

And I still argue against this draft, not because I didn't think the subject wasn't important, but because I think that this proposal is a failure in trying to get the issue across.

[Separatist Peoples]

Sure, most people come to the sensible decision to immunize on their own. But a few people can ruin it for everyone.
if they understand that vaccinations are good and take them anyway and further understand that those that refuse out many others at risk then they should understand the need for a mandate

"You'll note that I wasn't in complete opposition to this to start with. Its been the author's dismissive and, frankly, insulting, view of minarchist governments, which the C.D.S.P. most certainly is, that has placed us in opposition. The only "sickening" thing here has been the bill in question...So long as a nation has the means by which to prevent diseases from crossing international borders, this remains a purely national concern, and thus no business of the World Assembly."

[Societatis Frigidus]

I am not dismissive, but honest: anyone that believes that the convenience of healthy individuals is worth more than the life of AIDS victims, cancer patients and those undergoing immunosuppressant therapy is showing conduct unbefitting of a delegation in these esteemed halls.

OOC: This is just IC insulting and stuff, so I hope noone things this is going OOC. I wub u all.

[Separatist Peoples]

I am not dismissive, but honest: anyone that believes that the convenience of healthy individuals is worth more than the life of AIDS victims, cancer patients and those undergoing immunosuppressant therapy is showing conduct unbefitting of a delegation in these esteemed halls.

OOC: This is just IC insulting and stuff, so I hope noone things this is going OOC. I wub u all.

"Ambassador, then you clearly think that an individuals' religious and personal beliefs are insignificant compared to the theoretical risk to an already compromised individual. Not being vaccinated is hardly a convenience. It is often prudent to do so, unless the individual in question has issues with them so serious that they are willing to risk their lives. As to your false dichotomy and appeal to emotion, you can stop right now. Immuno-suppressed or not, unintentional spread of a lethal disease is not a callus disregard for life any more then spreading the sniffles is. If its intentional, it falls into the realm of bio-terrorism or bio-warfare, and gets treated as such. There is a huge difference, ambassador."

[Araraukar]

I am not dismissive, but honest: anyone that believes that the convenience of healthy individuals is worth more than the life of AIDS victims, cancer patients and those undergoing immunosuppressant therapy is showing conduct unbefitting of a delegation in these esteemed halls.

So why are you still here?

I'll write this slowly to give you time to catch up.

1) HIV infection does not result in AIDS, if proper medical treatment is given.

2) Not all cancer patients are immunocompromised. You're probably thinking of leukemia.

3) A vaccine works only because the immune system of the person responds to the biochemical stimulus from the viral or bacterial parts or proteins used in the virus, and thus learns to recognise and destroy said virus/bacteria.

4) An immunocompromised person's immune system is not working correctly.

5) A vaccination would, in the worst case, lead into the complete collapse of the person's immune system as it tries to respond to this new emergency. In any case it would tax their body's resources.

6) It is very likely that an immunocompromised person's immune response to the vaccine would be too weak to immunise them against the disease. As in, be completely useless, only costing their body energy and resources.

AND YOU WANT TO FORCE THEM TO BE VACCINATED TO PROTECT THEM?!?!?!?!

[Normlpeople]

I am not dismissive, but honest: anyone that believes that the convenience of healthy individuals is worth more than the life of AIDS victims, cancer patients and those undergoing immunosuppressant therapy is showing conduct unbefitting of a delegation in these esteemed halls.

OOC: This is just IC insulting and stuff, so I hope noone things this is going OOC. I wub u all.

IC: "The issue I have with this Ambassador, is that you are forcing medication/vaccinations on a vast majority of a population to protect what is a very small minority. We feel that the decision to be vaccinated rests with the individual, and should that individual refuse and end up sick, it's their choice. While Herd immunity is counted on by some, it requires a vast majority of said herd to truly be a threat to the minority that cannot be vaccinated, and even then, it's very much a "wrong place, wrong time" thing.

A proper education campaign (I know the value of good propaganda all too well) stressing the importance of vaccination will get most of the population to willingly get it. Those that don't, well, they made the choice.

Since AIDS victims, cancer patience and immune-suppressive persons are your concern (diseases that may not even exist in many WA nations), perhaps limiting the mandatory vaccinations to medical staff that deal with these people would be a better path. That would be one I could support."

OOC: Considering my job, believe me, it would be hard for anything someone says here to offend me. Everything is taken IC unless told otherwise

[Defwa]

4) An immunocompromised person's immune system is not working correctly.

5) A vaccination would, in the worst case, lead into the complete collapse of the person's immune system as it tries to respond to this new emergency. In any case it would tax their body's resources.

6) It is very likely that an immunocompromised person's immune response to the vaccine would be too weak to immunise them against the disease. As in, be completely useless, only costing their body energy and resources.

AND YOU WANT TO FORCE THEM TO BE VACCINATED TO PROTECT THEM?!?!?!?!

Just gotta point out this line:
"CLARIFIES that the EPARC will denote special patients groups (e.g. pregnant, immunosuppressed individuals) that are exempt from the mandatory vaccination programs based on individual risk analysis."

[Araraukar]

Just gotta point out this line:
"CLARIFIES that the EPARC will denote special patients groups (e.g. pregnant, immunosuppressed individuals) that are exempt from the mandatory vaccination programs based on individual risk analysis."

I'm not the one that brought them up as excuses to force this down people's throats.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: This still seems like a 'committee only' violation. All of the actual operative section is dependent on committee functions. However, I won't register a formal challenge, as it's in a new category for which the rules are not yet readily apparent.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This still seems like a 'committee only' violation. All of the actual operative section is dependent on committee functions. However, I won't register a formal challenge, as it's in a new category for which the rules are not yet readily apparent.

The "committee only" is what's going to go into the GHR, unless the author submits it himself soon enough...

[Normlpeople]

OOC: This still seems like a 'committee only' violation. All of the actual operative section is dependent on committee functions. However, I won't register a formal challenge, as it's in a new category for which the rules are not yet readily apparent.

The "committee only" is what's going to go into the GHR, unless the author submits it himself soon enough...

OOC: What is it lately with "Extreme Opposition = Submit Immediately"?

[Araraukar]

OOC: What is it lately with "Extreme Opposition = Submit Immediately"?

OOC: Oh how I wish it was something new, but it happens about 90% of the time when the author is new to this.

[Ardchoille]

Yup, Just-a-Committee. If the committee obligations were removed, there'd be nothing for national governments to do.

The references to existing Resolutions didn't fall foul of House of Cards, as they were in scene-setting, non-active clauses. The proposal didn't build on or amend the actual Resolutions. Adding tasks to an existing committee is not counted as "building on". It just allows said committee to remain if its establishing Resolution is repealed.

If you're going to try again with this idea, you might consider whether you can ascribe to national governments some of the duties you've previously given to a committee.

---

Not a ruling: I have a theory that mentioning specific Resolutions in a proposal scares off skittish voters who automatically assume it's a HoC violation without analysing its effect in the text. OTOH, some voters may feel it adds authority. It's a public-relations decision.