[PASSED] Repeal "Assitance Givers Protection"

[Sedgistan]

A link to the resolution I'm going to repeal.

Applauding the intentions of Ga #106 "Assitance Givers Protection,"

Seeking, however, to improve the quality of international law,

Believing that the resolution in question is poorly written,

Regretting that the ambiguity of its language precludes several of its clauses from being effectively enforced,

Recognizing that simply believing yourself capable of helping someone does not necessarily indicate capability to help effectively,

Notes that the resolution bars simple actions such as removing someone from harm's way, when doing so would be both warranted and acceptable.

Feeling that GA #106 unnecessarily ties the hands of nations who might be better arbiters of the merits of each individual case,

Emphasizes that harm resultant of negligence, even in the course of providing assistance, should still be actionable in civil court in at least some cases,

Accepting that most nations will pass their own laws on the subject without the interference of the World Assembly,

Hereby repeals Ga #106 "Assitance Givers Protection."

So the flaws inherent to this resolution are obvious, some maybe not so much.

The misspelling in the title is worth mentioning, but is not itself a basis for a repeal. Assuming that all the language problems didn't exist, the purpose of the resolution is very specific. It seeks to grant immunity to civil suits that might discourage people from helping emergency victims. This is an admirable goal, but not one I can hold is in the realm of the World Assembly. That said, there need to be concrete reasons for a repeal outside of Nat Sov.

Firstly, it makes no exceptions for those who are operating under impairment. Someone who has the proper training and has the opportunity to help, but who is clearly impaired(through drugs or alcohol, for instance), is protected from civil suits that might arise from their care, no matter how negligent. This is an obvious flaw.

Secondly, if you're unsure as to what occurred and you aren't an emergency responder, you may not help victims. I believe that will cause less people, not more, to provide assistance to those that need it in emergency situations. It makes a basic mistake that causes harm. It assumes all assistance is in the form of medical assistance. One can remove a victim from a dangerous situation and save his/her life.

Beyond that, and involving medical assistance: One can apply pressure to a wound without advanced medical training. One can be directed by someone who does have advanced medical training. One can assist those who do have medical training.

The ambiguity of language may make most of this moot. I can read it and wonder if it prohibits or allows anything. But assuming the language is sound, it does not do what it set out to do, which is to save lives. With that said, it has to go.

[Auralia]

Support. We were planning to repeal this resolution ourselves at some point.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I will have more to say on this in the future, as I'm a bit short on time right now. I just want to say that I'm firmly in favor of repealing GA#106. Any resolution which cannot even spell its title correctly deserves to be repealed on principle, and I encourage the author to include a provision stating that misspelling "Assistance" in the title of the act is itself a flaw that warrants repeal.

Also, I'd ask that the author include the text of the targeted resolution in the OP for easy reference.

Best Regards,

[The Dourian Embassy]

I will have more to say on this in the future, as I'm a bit short on time right now. I just want to say that I'm firmly in favor of repealing GA#106. Any resolution which cannot even spell its title correctly deserves to be repealed on principle, and I encourage the author to include a provision stating that misspelling "Assistance" in the title of the act is itself a flaw that warrants repeal.

Also, I'd ask that the author include the text of the targeted resolution in the OP for easy reference.

Best Regards,

I'd prefer not to seem petty, it's mispelled, but that's not the only flaw it presents. I did provide a link in the original post to the original resolution.

[Discoveria]

I'm also firmly in favour of this repeal.

My own analysis of GAR#106 - feel free to use arguments provided:

The WA:

RECOGNIZES that in the event of an emergency, first responders and trained personnel typically handle the situation in attempt to save the person(s) in danger,

REALIZING that in certain instances, first responders may not immediately be on the scene of the emergency. Nonetheless, the emergency victims need immediate attention so passer-by step in to help,

DEFINES these passer-by as “Assistance Givers (AGs)”, Annoying backwards definition; it should read "DEFINES 'assistance-givers' as the aforementioned passers-by"

APPALLED that even after the AG’s attempt to help the emergency victims, occasionally the victims will file a civil suit against the AG’s, even if no harm was caused by the AG,

NOTES that it should be every nations right to determine if citizens can or cannot file civil suits against other citizens, organizations, or other establishments for certain reasons,

BELIEVES however, that protection against said lawsuits toward a AG should be implemented in those nations that allow civil suits,

MANDATES the following:
Article I:
1) Any AG who attempts to help an emergency victim in need shall be exempt from a civil suit towards them from the emergency victim, their family, or any person(s) or organization(s) that represent them provided the information in article 1, sections 2 and 3 are adhered to.
2) Any AG shall not attempt to help an emergency victim if a) They are unsure of what actually occurred in the situation at hand or b) Do not have proper training to perform any tasks that need to happen in order to help the emergency victim. No, such people should still be allowed to help. You've already identified this problem. You should mention it in your repeal, e.g. "REGRETS that GAR#106 prevents passers-by from helping emergency victims when the passers-by are uncertain or untrained, despite there usually being simple actions that could help a victim;"
3) A AG forfeits this right if harm is caused to the emergency victim and if the emergency victim, or another other person(s) or organization(s) have viable proof that the harm was intentional.
Article II:
1) Any trained medical professional who arrives at the scene of an emergency by chance is confident that they can in some way help an emergency victim is required to help the emergency victim to the best of their ability until other trained personnel arrive. This is intrusive. While medical ethics does strongly support the position that medical professionals should always help in an emergency, there may be situations where restraint is called for (e.g. if the situation puts the professional's life at risk).
2) If this trained medical person does not have proper apparatus and is not confident that they can improvise, they are not required to help any emergency victim if the procedure could potentially harm them. Contradicts the preceding clause.
3) All of Article 1 applies to medical professionals who are not called to an emergency scene. This clause prevents emergency medicine doctors from helping victims transferred to their hospital (since Article 1 section 2 prohibits AGs from helping if they are unsure of what happened). Discoverian hospitals have to get around this problem by treating all emergency victims as 'acute medicine patients' who undergo basic re-assessment on transfer to hospital.
Article III
1a) Requires member states to provide basic education of certain situations and first aid to those who seek it; This is nice to encourage, but I don't think it should be a requirement. No-one has the unconditional right to be provided with information on demand.
1b) Allows for member states to implement mandatory basic education of certain situations and first aid training for citizens to partake in.
2)The content of these courses may be determined by the nation based on common emergency situations but the following are highly encouraged: treatment of open sore wounds (i.e. gunshots), CPR, treatment of infectious poisons, and how to operate life saving equipment. What's CPR? Clearly the intention is 'cardio-pulmonary resuscitation', but it should be explicitly defined.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I will have more to say on this in the future, as I'm a bit short on time right now. I just want to say that I'm firmly in favor of repealing GA#106. Any resolution which cannot even spell its title correctly deserves to be repealed on principle, and I encourage the author to include a provision stating that misspelling "Assistance" in the title of the act is itself a flaw that warrants repeal.

Also, I'd ask that the author include the text of the targeted resolution in the OP for easy reference.

Best Regards,

I'd prefer not to seem petty, it's mispelled, but that's not the only flaw it presents. I did provide a link in the original post to the original resolution.

I don't think it's petty to insist that international legislation be spelled correctly. The laws we pass are a reflection on this Assembly as a whole, and we certainly don't look like a respectable international legislature when we can't correctly spell the title of our laws.

That said, it's your repeal. If you don't think that argument bears mentioning, so be it.

[Discoveria]

I don't think it's petty to insist that international legislation be spelled correctly. The laws we pass are a reflection on this Assembly as a whole, and we certainly don't look like a respectable international legislature when we can't correctly spell the title of our laws.

That said, it's your repeal. If you don't think that argument bears mentioning, so be it.

Normally I'd side with The Dourian Embassy, but this particular misspelling does put the Ass in 'World Assembly Resolution' a bit more than the average typo.

[Sciongrad]

Like others, my delegation strongly supports a repeal of GAR#106, and it's been on our to-repeal list for quite some time. As always, we wish his Excellency of Douria the best of luck in this endeavor.

[Allinlia]

We agree that GAR #106 is full of highly problematic language, I would be in full support of this repeal.

-Drayton Clinto, Allinlian Imperial Ambassador to the World Assembly

[The Dourian Embassy]

I did include a reference to the point about barring people from helping in any way if they're untrained or uninformed, even when simple actions can be done to save a life. If no one has an objection, I'm about to submit this.

[Bergnovinaia]

I, as the author, would actually be in support of a well-written, logical repeal. (I never quite realized how many errors there were in wording, aside from the s missing from "assistance.") That being said, this current repeal effort is too fallacious to receive our support at this time.

The counterarguement:

Applauding the intentions of Ga #106 "Assitance Givers Protection,"

Seeking, however, to improve the quality of international law,

Fluff clause is fluff clause.

Believing that the resolution in question is poorly written,

As I said, I concede this point.

Regretting that the ambiguity of its language precludes several of its clauses from being effectively enforced,

Possibly, but an example here would help your case.

Recognizing that simply believing yourself capable of helping someone does not necessarily indicate capability to help effectively,

"Believing yourself capable" only applies to "trained medical professionals" if you read the resolution. AG's who are not medically trained are not obligated to help. (In fact, the goal of the resolution was to protect individuals from frivilous lawsuits, but also to discourage non-trained people from helping to much... from trying to be more of a "hero" than their training allows them to be.) Therefore, this point makes no sense, whatsoever.

Notes that the resolution bars simple actions such as removing someone from harm's way, when doing so would be both warranted and acceptable.

Again, false. Nowhere does the resolution prohibit the movement of individuals away from an emergency scene. However, if someone was injured and the AG moving the person knew that it could potentially be worse to move them out of harms way (for whatever reason), than yes, that would merit a lawsuit if it caused harm. I am just amused because either a) you haven't clearly read and understood this resolution before attempting to repeal it or, b) you are attempting to utilize scare tactics to gain approval from delegates/voters.

Feeling that GA #106 unnecessarily ties the hands of nations who might be better arbiters of the merits of each individual case,

Natsov arguement is Natsov arguement. (Also, I gurantee you that appx. 80% or more of the WA member nations either do not know about this law or refuse to follow it, for RP purposes, anyways. It seems devoid of logic to use this arguement here since it is rather petty in search of something to critique the proposal with.)

Emphasizes that harm resultant of negligence, even in the course of providing assistance, should still be actionable in civil court in at least some cases,

Again... this is allowed. Not all lawsuits are denied because of GA #106. If the victim or individuals acting on the behalf of the victim have some sort of viable proof that the harm was either intentional or negligent, they have grounds for a case.

Accepting that most nations will pass their own laws on the subject without the interference of the World Assembly,

Again, Natsov arguement that is fluff.



While I understand where the support to repeal this piece of (I admit) flawed legislation comes from, I do not want to see it be repealed by one of the most fallacious and far-reaching repeals to ever come to a WA vote. If you would like my approval on a repeal, which I bet would greatly expedite the approval and vote process, contact me with a more sound arguement.

Yours,

Berg

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

Hi there. Yeah, your resolution contains pretty ambiguous language, as such it's difficult to nail down exactly what it does say or do, but I outlined a few of the arguments in the original post in this thread. I slimmed them down for the actual repeal itself.

2) Any AG shall not attempt to help an emergency victim if a) They are unsure of what actually occurred in the situation at hand or b) Do not have proper training to perform any tasks that need to happen in order to help the emergency victim.

If you're untrained or unsure of the situation, you cannot involve yourself in helping people. Period. This is where the ambiguity of language comes in. The term "any tasks" refers to, well, any tasks. So even if the training would not necessarily be needed for that task, you must be trained for ANY task that "need to happen in order to help the emergency victim" the language makes it all or nothing.

1) Any trained medical professional who arrives at the scene of an emergency by chance is confident that they can in some way help an emergency victim is required to help the emergency victim to the best of their ability until other trained personnel arrive.

A doctor, for example, who is completely drunk, but confident in his abilities to help, would not only be required to help, but protected from civil litigation.

These are not the only clauses where the language could be tighter and more concise, but they are the most important ones I think. And I acknowledged in the original post that a NatSov argument is not itself a viable argument for repeal, it can be part of the argument for a repeal though. Nothing wrong with that.

[Sanctaria]

This delegation supports a sound, well-written repeal of the Assitance Givers Protection act. We are confident that the delegation from Douria will accomplish this and we are happy to help in doing so should it be requested of us.

It should be stressed, however, that despite the NatSov tones of this repeal, this delegation will only support the repeal should the author express no ill will towards a better written, more adequate replacement on the subject.

Dr. Katherine Saunders
Deputy Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[The Dourian Embassy]

It should be stressed, however, that despite the NatSov tones of this repeal, this delegation will only support the repeal should the author express no ill will towards a better written, more adequate replacement on the subject.

The current draft expresses no such ill will towards a replacement, it simply doesn't encourage it.

[Bergnovinaia]

It should be stressed, however, that despite the NatSov tones of this repeal, this delegation will only support the repeal should the author express no ill will towards a better written, more adequate replacement on the subject.

The current draft expresses no such ill will towards a replacement, it simply doesn't encourage it.

False.

Accepting that most nations will pass their own laws on the subject without the interference of the World Assembly.

Conceding that most nations will pass their own laws is essentially a smoke-screen way of saying "no need for a replacement."

And as I already pointed out, your arguement is valid, not sound. Present it in a more cohesive way and even I might be on board.

--Berg

[The Dourian Embassy]

The current draft expresses no such ill will towards a replacement, it simply doesn't encourage it.

False.

Accepting that most nations will pass their own laws on the subject without the interference of the World Assembly.

Conceding that most nations will pass their own laws is essentially a smoke-screen way of saying "no need for a replacement."

And as I already pointed out, your arguement is valid, not sound. Present it in a more cohesive way and even I might be on board.

--Berg

I appreciate that. I think the piece is fine, but I only got out about half the telegrams I wanted due to coming down with the flu. So, if it does fail to reach quorum(I don't think it will though), I'll see what I can do about assuaging your fears without weakening the repeal.

And without taking out the stuff that acknowledges the fact that I'm a nat sov.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom would be glad to see a poorly written resolution be repealed and we applaud the conscientious Dourian Embassy for daring to state its opinions in this repeal, which strikes a beautiful balance between minimalism and argumentation", Lord Raekevik stated with a wide grin of approval.

"Oh and we would respectfully suggest the esteemed Delegation from Bergnovinaia to invest in language services, so that their argu(*e)ments may be better worded in any future legislative endeavours."

[Sanctaria]

And without taking out the stuff that acknowledges the fact that I'm a nat sov.

Unfortunately this delegation cannot support this repeal.

Dr. Katherine Saunders
Deputy Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly

[The Dourian Embassy]

And it has reached Quorum. Thanks for the support everybody.

[Bergnovinaia]

And it has reached Quorum. Thanks for the support everybody.

As the delegate of my region, I'll vote according to my region's vote tally. If I vote for, know I am NOT in support of this repeal effort, despite being in support of a repeal in general.

As previously stated, the arguement is poorly written. I don't support poor, somewhat petty arguements repealing poorly worded legislation.

[Sanctaria]

Regardless of what was stated by my deputy in my absence, I am against this repeal for one reason and one reason only: on two occasions you have a lower case a in the initialisation of General Assembly, rather than an upper case one.

Considering a reason behind this repeal is the terrible spelling, I find this to be even more annoying than omitting the s in Assistance.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Regardless of what was stated by my deputy in my absence, I am against this repeal for one reason and one reason only: on two occasions you have a lower case a in the initialisation of General Assembly, rather than an upper case one.

Considering a reason behind this repeal is the terrible spelling, I find this to be even more annoying than omitting the s in Assistance.

For the record, I made a point that the spelling was not the focus of the repeal(several times in this very thread). I'd really rather focus in on the ambiguous/poor wording. I decided on that, because everyone makes mistakes. And despite, I must remind you, pleas from other delegations that I make it the primary focus of the repeal.

One hopes not to make spelling mistakes in the title of their resolution as the original author did, but mistakes happen. I should've assumed of course, that in repealing something with serious grammatical problems on top of other flaws, that someone would assume that's why it's being repealed. It's not, I'm repealing it because the language is inexact, and can lead to situations that risk lives rather than save them.

That said, you were around for the drafting phase of this, before it was submitted and I genuinely wish you'd pointed that out then. I'm more bothered by the fact that one of the clauses uses "notes" instead of "noting" but nothing is perfect. We can push for and hope for perfect, but I'm more than willing to accept better.

I would go further to ask how one can support a repeal, but not this repeal. It makes little sense to me to say that you have some minor quibbles with the language, so your only recourse is to allow people's lives to be in danger for longer. That said, vote with your hearts.

Edit: And to those who said that I should make the poor spelling a focus of this repeal, and who thought my reply that it would seem "petty" was unimportant. You were probably right, turns out I was going to get accused of being petty anyway.

As previously stated, the arguement is poorly written. I don't support poor, somewhat petty arguements repealing poorly worded legislation.

[Sanctaria]

That said, you were around for the drafting phase of this, before it was submitted and I genuinely wish you'd pointed that out then. I'm more bothered by the fact that one of the clauses uses "notes" instead of "noting" but nothing is perfect. We can push for and hope for perfect, but I'm more than willing to accept better.

I disagree that I was around when this was being drafted. You indicated submission on the 28th, and this delegation got involved on the 29th - most likely after it was submitted. Otherwise my deputy probably wouldn't have noticed the debate.

For the record, I made a point that the spelling was not the focus of the repeal(several times in this very thread). I'd really rather focus in on the ambiguous/poor wording. I decided on that, because everyone makes mistakes. And despite, I must remind you, pleas from other delegations that I make it the primary focus of the repeal.

One hopes not to make spelling mistakes in the title of their resolution as the original author did, but mistakes happen. I should've assumed of course, that in repealing something with serious grammatical problems on top of other flaws, that someone would assume that's why it's being repealed. It's not, I'm repealing it because the language is inexact, and can lead to situations that risk lives rather than save them.

Just because you haven't decided to focus on the spelling in this repeal's current form, doesn't mean it isn't a reason for repealing it.

I would go further to ask how one can support a repeal, but not this repeal. It makes little sense to me to say that you have some minor quibbles with the language, so your only recourse is to allow people's lives to be in danger for longer. That said, vote with your hearts.

Oh please, save me the bleeding heart. I like quality resolutions on the books, even repeals. And, unlike poor quality resolutions which can be stricken, repeals stay there until this establishment suffers the same fate as its predecessor.

Oh and the whole "vote for this or people will die" line is just pathetic. Try better next time, Ambassador.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

It is nice to see that another ambassador has given this genuine and thoughtful consideration. My delegation applauds you.

[Discoveria]

I was surprised at how quickly the repeal moved from draft to submission, otherwise I might have commented on the wording and any issues subject to Discoverian pedantry.

I don't see much point in opposing the repeal on the basis that the text has a few typos. It's Muphry's law [sic]. Not a big deal.