[DRAFT] Freedom From Violence

[Eireann Fae]

"Well, Ambassador, we advocate ideals in theory as well as in practice, whenever possible. I think you'd be amazed at what one can accomplish when they reach for an ideal, rather than simply going through the motions of life, content to serve the status quo." Alexandra looks from the Ossitanian Ambassador to the others gathered to debate the proposal. "Any more suggestions on the 'physical injury' idea? Or perhaps 'physical injury, mental distress or death'? Any suggestions in general?"

[Burninati0n]

<Deleted.>

[Keronians]

It's almost universally accepted that during times of war, the threat to national security can be so great that some of the rights that citizens otherwise have must be temporarily suspended.

You could add a clause allowing nations to conscript people to the army in times of crisis so that people might actually feel compelled to vote for it.

Add a clause like this, delegation, and you shall have my, and the Keronian Empire's, full support.

Also, we prefer limiting this Act to physical harm. The main connotation with violence is agression and physical harm. Just a recommendation, though. It is far easier to protect a person from physical harm, and rather impossible to protect them from psychological harm.

[Eireann Fae]

"Zökü..." says Epiſkœ, slowly, as she looks from one Fae Human to the other, then back to the Burninational Ambassador. "Zökü harœſnil-eʃjazœ'ǀi. Könil, fen-hözœ.^[1]" Confused, Rowan and Alexandra both direct their attention at the Emissary, both forgetting for the moment to offer a translation. The diminutive Spirit Faerie whispers to the girls for a few moments. As she speaks, Rowan's expression turns to one of mild disappointment, while Alexandra seems to have been expecting such instructions. The younger girl starts to protest, but the Emissary's mind is clearly made up. Closing her eyes, Rowan nods her concession of defeat. Her slightly elder counterpart turns to address the Assembly; specifically the Burninational.

"The Community of Eireann Fae will continue to observe the practice of voluntary defense, and, on a personal level, plead with all the nations of the world, Assembly members or not, to do the same. No one should be forced to fight, for any reason, against their will. However, clearly the world is not utopian, and most beings in it are not willing to help make it so. During a defensive war, the practice of conscription as a means of bolstering the active fighting force may be allowed, to a limited extent. I propose the following active clause,

1a. If a member nation is forced to defend their sovereignty from an aggressor, citizens of that nation may be compelled to defend their nation, only from within their nation's borders.

The girl sighs before going on. Clearly this is a concession she doesn't really want to make. Alas, such is the way of things... "Our intention here is clear, and I am open to suggestions with regards to the wording of the proposed clause. I want it on the record that we still find such acts deplorable, but if this is the only way to secure most of the rights we seek, we will make this small concession. If the nation started a war of aggression and now happens to be on the defensive - no combatant conscription. If the nation is fighting defensively, but abroad - no combatant conscription. If the war is one of aggression, and the defending nation is invaded, they can conscript combatants only to fight defensively within their borders. Most of the effect of the law remains in place - if not the spirit... - and you are still allowed to bolster defensive forces when your sovereignty is threatened against your will." The girl casts her gaze upon the several Ambassadors who had scrambled to defend their abhorrent practice of military slavery. "Is this agreeable to the majority?"

Rowan, meanwhile, has started a little tally. Under the heading 'pain or harm', she writes Alex 2 [Quelesh]; under 'physical injury', she adds Christian [Coxnord], Keronian guy. The girl frowns as she looks at her short list, then at the gathered Ambassadors who have spoken up in the course of this particular debate. They had gone from preventing people from being forced to harm anyone in any way to possibly limiting the effects of this resolution to physical harm, and even allowing conscription of combatants! So many concessions... 'This must be how Ms. Harper feels,' the girl thinks with a sigh. 'So many concessions to make a law passable. I need a Vesper...^[2]' As Alexandra waits to see how their latest concession will be received, Rowan doodles a little in the margins of her parchment, waiting for more Ambassadors to speak on either issue.

¹ Translation: Perhaps... Perhaps there is room for compromise. A moment, please.
² Rowan has a fondness for Green Vespers, a cocktail of absinthe, vodka and gin.

[Quelesh]

*Alexandria sighs and smiles grimly, understanding the reason for the faerie's compromise*

You don't need me to tell you that this is a dramatic weakening of the proposal. Rest assured I do understand the reason for it. Perhaps a test run could be done without it, and then, if it fails, the compromise clause could be added on the second attempt?

I do thank you for making the compromise clause specific enough to reduce the possibility of abuse, though I would also recommend adding something like "and only to the extent necessary to repel an invasion" to the end of the clause. The current wording could, for example, be construed to allow states to compel their citizens to act as pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles that are sent to strike targets outside of the nation's borders, since the conscript would remain within the nation's borders while controlling the UAV.

For additional clarity, I would recommend:

1a. If a member nation is forced to defend their sovereignty from an invading aggressor, citizens of that nation may be compelled to defend their nation, only from within their nation's borders and only to the extent necessary to repel the invasion.

[Linux and the X]

1a. If a member nation is forced to defend their sovereignty from an aggressor, citizens of that nation may be compelled to defend their nation, only from within their nation's borders.

I'm sorry to tell you that I won't be able to vote for this.

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra smiles at Delegate Yadoru, and writes the clause as suggested. Rowan starts another tally, and starts posting the results for all to see. The elder girl addresses the Ambassadors from Quelesh and Linux and the X. "Thank you for your suggestions, Delegate, both in the wording of the clause and when to use it. Would her altered wording be more palatable to your tastes, Ambassador?" She directs the question at the Linuxian, not really expecting Fred to go for it, but hoping for the best, nonetheless.

[Linux and the X]

Alexandra smiles at Delegate Yadoru, and writes the clause as suggested. Rowan starts another tally, and starts posting the results for all to see. The elder girl addresses the Ambassadors from Quelesh and Linux and the X. "Thank you for your suggestions, Delegate, both in the wording of the clause and when to use it. Would her altered wording be more palatable to your tastes, Ambassador?" She directs the question at the Linuxian, not really expecting Fred to go for it, but hoping for the best, nonetheless.

Unfortunately not; it still ruins the entire idea. However, given that universal support is clearly not possible, perhaps you'll consider simply proposing what you actually want, at least as a test run?

For those who believe that this will hurt their nations' ability to protect itself... are your nations really so horrible that you cannot assemble a fully-voluntary protective force?

[Eireann Fae]

For those who believe that this will hurt their nations' ability to protect itself... are your nations really so horrible that you cannot assemble a fully-voluntary protective force?

Alexandra smiles grimly as she responds, "I feel you there, Ambassador. That's a point we've tried to make repeatedly throughout the debate. Your objection is noted - am I accurate in assuming that you feel more strongly for 'Opposed' than 'Add later'? I'd like for our little tally here to remain as accurate as possible." Her smile lightening a little, the girl gestures to the note attached to the front of their desk.

(OOC: By which I mean the first post :-)

[Linux and the X]

For those who believe that this will hurt their nations' ability to protect itself... are your nations really so horrible that you cannot assemble a fully-voluntary protective force?

Alexandra smiles grimly as she responds, "I feel you there, Ambassador. That's a point we've tried to make repeatedly throughout the debate. Your objection is noted - am I accurate in assuming that you feel more strongly for 'Opposed' than 'Add later'? I'd like for our little tally here to remain as accurate as possible." Her smile lightening a little, the girl gestures to the note attached to the front of their desk.

(OOC: By which I mean the first post :-)

An accurate assumption indeed. We don't wish to encode in law that nations have a right to force their citizens to participate in murder.

[Ossitania]

An accurate assumption indeed. We don't wish to encode in law that nations have a right to force their citizens to participate in murder.

A quick question for the ambassador from Linux and the X; why is it that if an individual kills someone who threatens his bodily sovereignty out of necessity, it is self-defense, but if a nation kills those who threatens its national sovereignty out of necessity, it is murder?

Furthermore, what if there are those who would gladly fight for their country but can't because they don't meet medical requirements, like the disable and the elderly? Should they be condemned to being killed by a hostile invasion force because others don't want to fight? Perhaps more generally, even, why should those who want to fight to defend their country be condemned to potential destruction by the choices of others?

[Linux and the X]

An accurate assumption indeed. We don't wish to encode in law that nations have a right to force their citizens to participate in murder.

A quick question for the ambassador from Linux and the X; why is it that if an individual kills someone who threatens his bodily sovereignty out of necessity, it is self-defense, but if a nation kills those who threatens its national sovereignty out of necessity, it is murder?

In one instance the decision is made by the actor and in the other by the government.

Furthermore, what if there are those who would gladly fight for their country but can't because they don't meet medical requirements, like the disable and the elderly? Should they be condemned to being killed by a hostile invasion force because others don't want to fight? Perhaps more generally, even, why should those who want to fight to defend their country be condemned to potential destruction by the choices of others?

Um, what?

[Ossitania]

In one instance the decision is made by the actor and in the other by the government.

In the heat of the moment, protecting one's self, can you really say that a decision was made at all, rather than a knee-jerk reaction? Can you really say that they weren't forced to kill due to circumstances outside their control?

Um, what?

Why should invalid and elderly people who would fight if they were able be condemned to the death and destruction of war because other, more able people, don't want to? They can't defend themselves and unlike the spritely young people who would be recruited by the draft, they don't necessarily have the capacity to flee from an invading force.

Furthermore, why should members of the armed forces be condemned to death and destruction because the state isn't allowed to conscript other people to bolster the armed forces and give them a chance of winning? What you're suggesting is allowing the choices of some to cost the lives of others.

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra conspicuously coughs a little, feigns surprise when a few people look at her, then rises and faces the Ossitanian Ambassador. "Well, since I have a few peoples' attention anyway, would you mind if I fielded the questions? You tried to make a comparison between an individual being forced to kill in self-defense and a nation doing what you proposed to be the same thing. I'm here to tell you that there is a fundamental difference between an individual and a nation. Your argument may hold true in some cultures - I understand some insects, at the most basic level, rely on a hive-mind for the good of their society. Highly advanced telepathic societies may be comprised of intrinsically linked individuals, who do rely on one another. In such an instance, I expect they would voluntarily take care of one of their own - if not on a moral level, than on an instinctual, survivalist level. However, the majority of nations are not like this."

"A nation is comprised, as we both know, of many individuals. A fact that is also almost universal is that crime happens. Against other people. Individuals, even bound by society, hold no natural, instinctual need to protect their fellows. I am an individual being - I am not Eireann Fae, nor am I the nation I happened to be born in. I would fight for the former - to the death. For the place my parents happened to be from? Let it burn. I, as an individual, am free to make that decision. A nation is not an individual - it should not make this decision. A collection of loose individuals that happen to have been brought into this world in close proximity does not necessarily have to defend its status as a collection. The individuals, if the collection is destroyed, are still free to make that choice in the future, and suffer whatever consequences their decision, as an individual may bring."

"Too long, didn't listen?" The girl smiles. "A man has free will to defend or not defend his own bodily sovereignty as he will. A nation does not. A nation has a select few individuals, in most cases, that ask other individuals to fight for them. If their cause is righteous, they may earn the support of the populace. But no individual should be forced to kill in the name of a collective - especially when some or many in that collective have wronged him or their fellow citizens, or would if given the opportunity. Not every individual feels that their 'nation' is worth fighting for. No individual ought to be forced to kill for a nation. Or die for one, for that matter."

Alexandra closes her eyes and lowers her head, taking on a more solemn tone as she continues. "It's unfortunate that the elderly and infirm who would fight for their nation but can't may see their beloved nation fall under the heel of foreign boots. But your grandmother has no more right to ask me to fight for her than I have to ask of her the same. If I do not think the people in my nation are worth defending, that should be my choice. If I am infirm and cannot fight, I'm sure I'd find some way to contribute, personally, to the war effort." She opens her eyes and locks them with those of the Ossitanian Ambassador. "We have made an offer, Ambassador, allowing nations to compel their subjects to defend their nation within their borders. Right now, I plan to offer the concession in a future version should the first one fail. Would such a provision do more to gain your sympathy, and support? I have argued at length supporting the spirit of this proposal, and surely you know how much this concession would pain me. Surely you may find it appealing."

As Alexandra smiles at the Ambassador, Rowan rises to her feet and addresses the same man. "Also, how do you feel about 'physical injury' in place of 'harm, pain'? Just curious."

[Ossitania]

Alexandra conspicuously coughs a little, feigns surprise when a few people look at her, then rises and faces the Ossitanian Ambassador. "Well, since I have a few peoples' attention anyway, would you mind if I fielded the questions? You tried to make a comparison between an individual being forced to kill in self-defense and a nation doing what you proposed to be the same thing. I'm here to tell you that there is a fundamental difference between an individual and a nation. Your argument may hold true in some cultures - I understand some insects, at the most basic level, rely on a hive-mind for the good of their society. Highly advanced telepathic societies may be comprised of intrinsically linked individuals, who do rely on one another. In such an instance, I expect they would voluntarily take care of one of their own - if not on a moral level, than on an instinctual, survivalist level. However, the majority of nations are not like this."

"A nation is comprised, as we both know, of many individuals. A fact that is also almost universal is that crime happens. Against other people. Individuals, even bound by society, hold no natural, instinctual need to protect their fellows. I am an individual being - I am not Eireann Fae, nor am I the nation I happened to be born in. I would fight for the former - to the death. For the place my parents happened to be from? Let it burn. I, as an individual, am free to make that decision. A nation is not an individual - it should not make this decision. A collection of loose individuals that happen to have been brought into this world in close proximity does not necessarily have to defend its status as a collection. The individuals, if the collection is destroyed, are still free to make that choice in the future, and suffer whatever consequences their decision, as an individual may bring."

"Too long, didn't listen?" The girl smiles. "A man has free will to defend or not defend his own bodily sovereignty as he will. A nation does not. A nation has a select few individuals, in most cases, that ask other individuals to fight for them. If their cause is righteous, they may earn the support of the populace. But no individual should be forced to kill in the name of a collective - especially when some or many in that collective have wronged him or their fellow citizens, or would if given the opportunity. Not every individual feels that their 'nation' is worth fighting for. No individual ought to be forced to kill for a nation. Or die for one, for that matter."

Alexandra closes her eyes and lowers her head, taking on a more solemn tone as she continues. "It's unfortunate that the elderly and infirm who would fight for their nation but can't may see their beloved nation fall under the heel of foreign boots. But your grandmother has no more right to ask me to fight for her than I have to ask of her the same. If I do not think the people in my nation are worth defending, that should be my choice. If I am infirm and cannot fight, I'm sure I'd find some way to contribute, personally, to the war effort." She opens her eyes and locks them with those of the Ossitanian Ambassador. "We have made an offer, Ambassador, allowing nations to compel their subjects to defend their nation within their borders. Right now, I plan to offer the concession in a future version should the first one fail. Would such a provision do more to gain your sympathy, and support? I have argued at length supporting the spirit of this proposal, and surely you know how much this concession would pain me. Surely you may find it appealing."

As Alexandra smiles at the Ambassador, Rowan rises to her feet and addresses the same man. "Also, how do you feel about 'physical injury' in place of 'harm, pain'? Just curious."

Hmmm, it seems we're having a bit of a non-sequitur of a debate, because you're arguing about a scenario where the destruction of the nation leads to the destruction of the collective structure and the disassembly of that society into its base ingredients, i.e. individuals, whereas I'm arguing about a scenario where the destruction of the nation leads to people dying. I'm not trying to argue for the right to compel the citizens of a nation to defend its collective structure, I'm arguing for the right to compel the citizens of a nation to defend the lives of other citizens.

As to the definition, I like the current wording more. I don't feel that psychological pain should be excluded.

[Quelesh]

I'm arguing for the right to compel the citizens of a nation to defend the lives of other citizens.

So you think a state should be able to force Person A to kill Person B in order to save Person C?

What if I'd rather Person C die than Person B? More likely, what if, while Person C's death would distress me, I'm not willing to kill for him? Die for him, perhaps, but not kill for him. My decision regarding whether or not I'm willing to kill to save Person C is a highly personal ethical decision; the state has no right to hold a gun to my head.

[Ossitania]

So you think a state should be able to force Person A to kill Person B in order to save Person C?

What if I'd rather Person C die than Person B? More likely, what if, while Person C's death would distress me, I'm not willing to kill for him? Die for him, perhaps, but not kill for him. My decision regarding whether or not I'm willing to kill to save Person C is a highly personal ethical decision; the state has no right to hold a gun to my head.

This oversimplifies the scenario to a ridiculous extent.

First of all, Person A is killing Person B because Person B is going to kill Person C.

Second of all, I'm aware that such a decision is a highly personal ethical decision, I'm just not agreeing that that highly personal ethical decision should be made at the cost of lives.

[Octopucta]

So you think a state should be able to force Person A to kill Person B in order to save Person C?

What if I'd rather Person C die than Person B? More likely, what if, while Person C's death would distress me, I'm not willing to kill for him? Die for him, perhaps, but not kill for him. My decision regarding whether or not I'm willing to kill to save Person C is a highly personal ethical decision; the state has no right to hold a gun to my head.

This oversimplifies the scenario to a ridiculous extent.

First of all, Person A is killing Person B because Person B is going to kill Person C.

Second of all, I'm aware that such a decision is a highly personal ethical decision, I'm just not agreeing that that highly personal ethical decision should be made at the cost of lives.

Actually, Person A is killing Person B because Person B would is going to kill both A and C.

[Ossitania]

This oversimplifies the scenario to a ridiculous extent.

First of all, Person A is killing Person B because Person B is going to kill Person C.

Second of all, I'm aware that such a decision is a highly personal ethical decision, I'm just not agreeing that that highly personal ethical decision should be made at the cost of lives.

Actually, Person A is killing Person B because Person B would is going to kill both A and C.

Point taken.

[Sanctaria]

RECOGNIZING that there are professions where one may be called upon to cause harm,

I'm quite sure that you're probably referring to those in the armed forces, but I think you should also consider those in the medical profession. If so, I'm not sure harm is the correct term to be used. Yes, surgeons are required to cut open people to "fix" them, for lack of a better word, but are they harming the person? Some clarification here, I think.

REALIZING that there are those who have no objection to perform such duties,

No problem with this.

ALSO REALIZING that there are those who do have such an objection,

Is this a possible contender for a new C/O resolution? If so, the author should be more explicit in her intentions. Regardless, I have no problem here.

HEREBY MANDATES;

1. No inhabitant of a member nation shall be compelled, for any reason, to inflict harm, pain or death on any other sentient being.¹
2. No inhabitant of a member nation shall be persecuted, prosecuted, or punished for refusal to inflict harm, pain or death.²
3. This resolution does not affect the ability of inhabitants of member nations to take on jobs wherein they may inflict harm, pain or death of their own volition.³

1. You may want to be a little more clearer with "compelled". It's not always someone else compelling someone to do something, something it's one's own mind. By saying no member "shall be compelled", it may have an adverse effect on the mental health side of things. Clarification may be due here too.

2. Ordinarily, I'd have no problem with this clause, but what about in the instance where someone has the ability to save another's life, by merely punching an attacker, but doesn't. Would this not account for negligent manslaughter? Maybe some clarification here too.

3. No problem here. I'm reading this as a reaffirment of an earlier clause.

With regards to the proposed 1a, while the defence of your nation is paramount, I don't think everyone can be expected to take up arms, or whatnot and inflict harm/pain/death on another. As such, I would be opposed to such an inclusion.

Overall, pending some requests for clarification, I'm sure I could support this proposal.

Rgds.,

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra smiles as she rises to address the concerns of the Sanctarian Ambassador's concerns. "Actually, I had no specific profession in mind when drafting this proposal. The military certainly is one field of affected professions, but so are law enforcement, medical practitioners, and even professional athletes and veterinarians. 'Physical injury' would affect surgeons more than 'harm' would - if the temporary damage caused by surgical tools is for the greater health of the patient, it can be said that this is not 'harmful' to said patient. Our primary concern regarding surgeons would be if they were compelled to use their knowledge to inflict pain on prisoners or whatever. Surely if they wish to practice surgery, there is no way that this resolution would stop them. But if somebody is being forced to perform surgery, well, I just hope I'm not the one under the knife..."

The girl sighs as the Sanctarian calls her bill a 'new C/O resolution'. "No, it is not a new conscientious objector resolution. This proposal is not so narrow, and in fact, a new clause allowing forced military service is currently up for debate. The purpose of this resolution is to stop member nations from compelling any individual, in any field of work, from doing harm. The objection is to 'inflicting harm, pain or death'. It is not to serving in the military."

"If someone is compelled by 'their own mind', then that is the choice they made, and they should live with it. If the proposal is not clear enough on the matter, perhaps the wording could be changed to '...shall be compelled by another...'? Now that I think about it, that does sound like a good change. Just confirm the wording and I'll put it in writing." Alexandra smiles, and moves on to his second issue with the active clauses. "I'm sorry, but I do not believe anybody should be compelled to defend the life of another, even if all it would take is a scream for help. I believe everybody should take care of their fellow beings, but I would not obligate them to. Such situations may be traumatizing enough without pressing charges for not putting oneself in danger to save another."

As Alexandra takes her seat, Rowan takes up the quill and addresses the same Ambassador. "Thank you for your input on the proposed changes, Ambassador."

[Sanctaria]

Alexandra smiles as she rises to address the concerns of the Sanctarian Ambassador's concerns. "Actually, I had no specific profession in mind when drafting this proposal. The military certainly is one field of affected professions, but so are law enforcement, medical practitioners, and even professional athletes and veterinarians. 'Physical injury' would affect surgeons more than 'harm' would - if the temporary damage caused by surgical tools is for the greater health of the patient, it can be said that this is not 'harmful' to said patient. Our primary concern regarding surgeons would be if they were compelled to use their knowledge to inflict pain on prisoners or whatever. Surely if they wish to practice surgery, there is no way that this resolution would stop them. But if somebody is being forced to perform surgery, well, I just hope I'm not the one under the knife..."

While I thank you for the clarification, I still think there is some confusion, most likely on my part. If you're suggesting that "harm" does not extend to surgeons, or indeeds vets for that matter, perhaps you should reword this clause in order to better clarify your position?

The girl sighs as the Sanctarian calls her bill a 'new C/O resolution'. "No, it is not a new conscientious objector resolution. This proposal is not so narrow, and in fact, a new clause allowing forced military service is currently up for debate. The purpose of this resolution is to stop member nations from compelling any individual, in any field of work, from doing harm. The objection is to 'inflicting harm, pain or death'. It is not to serving in the military."

Thank you for the clarification.

"If someone is compelled by 'their own mind', then that is the choice they made, and they should live with it. If the proposal is not clear enough on the matter, perhaps the wording could be changed to '...shall be compelled by another...'? Now that I think about it, that does sound like a good change. Just confirm the wording and I'll put it in writing."

This rewording would be acceptable. Although we would have concerns about whether the mentally ill would believe it is another compelling them, that is something which I would accept is out of the remit of this proposal.

Alexandra smiles, and moves on to his second issue with the active clauses. "I'm sorry, but I do not believe anybody should be compelled to defend the life of another, even if all it would take is a scream for help. I believe everybody should take care of their fellow beings, but I would not obligate them to. Such situations may be traumatizing enough without pressing charges for not putting oneself in danger to save another."

Thank you for the clarification.

Rgds.,

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra writes in the changes to the proposal as Rowan rises to address the Sanctarian Ambassador again. "Harm extends to medical professionals, Ambassador. We just find it difficult to believe that after years of training and acquiring the socially lucrative position of respected healer that they would suddenly object to the preservation of life if a little pain happened to be inflicted along the way. Surgeons and vets would be protected by this resolution, to put a finer point on it. Do you have a suggestion for better wording?"

[Sanctaria]

Alexandra writes in the changes to the proposal as Rowan rises to address the Sanctarian Ambassador again. "Harm extends to medical professionals, Ambassador. We just find it difficult to believe that after years of training and acquiring the socially lucrative position of respected healer that they would suddenly object to the preservation of life if a little pain happened to be inflicted along the way. Surgeons and vets would be protected by this resolution, to put a finer point on it. Do you have a suggestion for better wording?"

That's all the clarification I needed, thank you.

Rgds.,

[Quelesh]

1. No inhabitant of a member nation shall be compelled by another, for any reason, to inflict harm, pain or death on any other sentient being.

I'm not convinced that this change is necessary, because one being compelled by oneself would not fall under the aegis of this proposal anyway, in my opinion, but if it is going to be included, I think it should be expanded to read by any other person or entity. By another could be read as by another inhabitant of a member nation, which would possibly allow loopholes where a state could say that it is the state that is compelling them, or some kind of non-sapient animal or robot under the direction of the state, or even a state agent that technically resides outside a member nation.

I'm quite sure that you're probably referring to those in the armed forces, but I think you should also consider those in the medical profession. If so, I'm not sure harm is the correct term to be used. Yes, surgeons are required to cut open people to "fix" them, for lack of a better word, but are they harming the person? Some clarification here, I think.

First, do no harm. As Alexandra said, surgeons would be covered by this proposal, but anyone who genuinely believed that making an incision as part of a necessary surgery was harming the patient, and was therefore unethical, would not be a surgeon anyway.