[PASSED] Freedom in Medical Research

[Connopolis]

Lobotomy is an example of a controversial practice that was developed, followed religiously by some physicians, but turned out to be grievously ineffective and disastrous for the patients. Not every practice developed is sound, sir, economically or ethically, precisely the reason they are controversial in the first place.

Your excellency, lobotomy's are ineffective; that is true. How was this conclusion reached, however? How could it have been foreseen? They are not necessarily unethical; simply disastrous, and as such, are not necessarily applicable to the situation.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

The Most Serene Republic of Cantalvia

Representing the interests of my people and acting as Chair of the Excutive Council of Cantalvia which has ratified to support this proposal, Cantalvia has always been concerned with the welfare and health of its citizens and believes that ethical medical experimentation can benefit the international community as a whole.

With deepest respect,

The Honorable Fredrick Vanderlan

Chair of the Excutive Council of Cantalvia

With all due respect, if you believe it then legislate it yourself - such legislation does not require international support. Furthermore, this is not for "ethical medical experimentation", it's for legalizing every practice, no matter how unsound or unethical, so long as the patients agree to it, or perhaps even demand it.

Oh, is that so? International cooperation in medicine and healthcare can be achieved without international cooperation? Might I ask your excellency how this is possible?

Yours in confusion,

[Pryssilvalia]

Lobotomy is an example of a controversial practice that was developed, followed religiously by some physicians, but turned out to be grievously ineffective and disastrous for the patients. Not every practice developed is sound, sir, economically or ethically, precisely the reason they are controversial in the first place.

Your excellency, lobotomy's are ineffective; that is true. How was this conclusion reached, however? How could it have been foreseen? They are not necessarily unethical; simply disastrous, and as such, are not necessarily applicable to the situation.

Yours,

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but I think your previous statement was:

"With all due respect, your argument is based on the assumption that an establishment will develop and offer a treatment that will not be profitable in the host nation."

I'm simply giving an example of a treatment that is not profitable for the host nation.

[Connopolis]

Your excellency, lobotomy's are ineffective; that is true. How was this conclusion reached, however? How could it have been foreseen? They are not necessarily unethical; simply disastrous, and as such, are not necessarily applicable to the situation.

Yours,

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but I think your previous statement was:

"With all due respect, your argument is based on the assumption that an establishment will develop and offer a treatment that will not be profitable in the host nation."

I'm simply giving an example of a treatment that is not profitable for the host nation.

That is correct ambassador, but not due to the reasoning I was implying. It wasn't lucrative because it was ineffective, not because the majority found it unethical.

Yours in dreading prolonged debates,

[Pryssilvalia]

With all due respect, if you believe it then legislate it yourself - such legislation does not require international support. Furthermore, this is not for "ethical medical experimentation", it's for legalizing every practice, no matter how unsound or unethical, so long as the patients agree to it, or perhaps even demand it.

Oh, is that so? International cooperation in medicine and healthcare can be achieved without international cooperation? Might I ask your excellency how this is possible?

Yours in confusion,

My dear, if you look carefully, there is nothing in the resolution that would require international cooperation. All clauses only have national effect. Whether a nation follows this resolution or not does not impair another nation's ability to follow this resolution.

[Connopolis]

Oh, is that so? International cooperation in medicine and healthcare can be achieved without international cooperation? Might I ask your excellency how this is possible?

Yours in confusion,

My dear, if you look carefully, there is nothing in the resolution that would require international cooperation. All clauses only have national effect. Whether a nation follows this resolution or not does not impair another nation's ability to follow this resolution.

Forgive me for my snideness, but what does your honorable delegation make of this clause, if it does not promote international cooperation:

(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community,

Your excellency, please read the draft thoroughly, to ensure that our debate moves more fluently.

Yours,

[Pryssilvalia]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but I think your previous statement was:

"With all due respect, your argument is based on the assumption that an establishment will develop and offer a treatment that will not be profitable in the host nation."

I'm simply giving an example of a treatment that is not profitable for the host nation.

That is correct ambassador, but not due to the reasoning I was implying. It wasn't lucrative because it was ineffective, not because it majority found it unethical.

Yours in dreading prolonged debates,

If you dread prolonged debates, perhaps you should make your arguments more convincing?

A treatment is not needed to be developed in the host nation to be offered as a treatment in the host nation, surely abortion is a glaring example?

[Pryssilvalia]

My dear, if you look carefully, there is nothing in the resolution that would require international cooperation. All clauses only have national effect. Whether a nation follows this resolution or not does not impair another nation's ability to follow this resolution.

Forgive me for my snideness, but what does your honorable delegation make of this clause, if it does not promote international cooperation:

(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community,

Your excellency, please read the draft thoroughly, to ensure that our debate moves more fluently.

Yours,

Haha, fair enough, my fault. But frankly, such clause is not the point of our current debate. Such a clause can be made a seperate resolution without any problem.

[Cantalvia]

The Most Serene Republic of Cantalvia

Representing the interests of my people and acting as Chair of the Excutive Council of Cantalvia which has ratified to support this proposal, Cantalvia has always been concerned with the welfare and health of its citizens and believes that ethical medical experimentation can benefit the international community as a whole.

With deepest respect,

The Honorable Fredrick Vanderlan

Chair of the Excutive Council of Cantalvia

With all due respect, if you believe it then legislate it yourself - such legislation does not require international support. Furthermore, this is not for "ethical medical experimentation", it's for legalizing every practice, no matter how unsound or unethical, so long as the patients agree to it, or perhaps even demand it.

I believe it is noted several times within the document that these medical experiments require consent of the patient through wrtten consent in language they can understand in laymans terms, we are not talking about doctors wandering about terpanning people willy nilly. Would the member perhaps be stating that most people would willingly give consent to a form that could possbly state '' opperation consists of shoving metal spikes through your spleen...for science?!'' that they would willingly accept such wildly irrational experimentations? There is such as thing in the medical community as a second opinion...

[Connopolis]

That is correct ambassador, but not due to the reasoning I was implying. It wasn't lucrative because it was ineffective, not because it majority found it unethical.

Yours in dreading prolonged debates,

If you dread prolonged debates, perhaps you should make your arguments more convincing?

A treatment is not needed to be developed in the host nation to be offered as a treatment in the host nation, surely abortion is a glaring example?

Ambassador, I am growing weary of this. Please, do not take offense to this, but this is basic economics.

Nation A dislikes Bananas as a whole.
Company A sells Bananas in Nation A.
Conjecture: If nation A dislikes bananas, Company A will not be profitable in selling bananas in Nation A.

If by chance, the treatment was made available, then it would most likely be effective, yet controversial. If medical professionals choose to practice a controversial, unpopular medical practice in a nation that disapproves of this treatment, can it be assumed that only those that want the treatment will receive it? It seems as if your excellency is intent on forcing your ethics down the throats of all citizens, regardless of their views. Such practices violate the very terms of government, as stated by the Lockean Social Contract, as well as many prominent philosophers. If your nation dislikes international cooperation, medical progress, and unethical practices, I advise you resign from this body immediately, as it seems you've forgotten about the multitude of other resolutions that are considered equally unethical?

The Most Serene Republic of Cantalvia

Representing the interests of my people and acting as Chair of the Excutive Council of Cantalvia which has ratified to support this proposal, Cantalvia has always been concerned with the welfare and health of its citizens and believes that ethical medical experimentation can benefit the international community as a whole.

With deepest respect,

The Honorable Fredrick Vanderlan

Chair of the Excutive Council of Cantalvia

I am ecstatic to hear your excellency's support! We appreciate your feedback, as well as your approval.

Yours in ecstasy,

[Cantalvia]

With all due respect, if you believe it then legislate it yourself - such legislation does not require international support. Furthermore, this is not for "ethical medical experimentation", it's for legalizing every practice, no matter how unsound or unethical, so long as the patients agree to it, or perhaps even demand it.

I believe it is noted several times within the document that these medical experiments require consent of the patient through wrtten consent in language they can understand in laymans terms, we are not talking about doctors wandering about terpanning people willy nilly. Would the member perhaps be stating that most people would willingly give consent to a form that could possbly state '' opperation consists of shoving metal spikes through your spleen...for science?!'' that they would willingly accept such wildly irrational experimentations? There is such as thing in the medical community as a second opinion...

On the other hand you do make a convincing argument about national legislation, I shall be abstaining from voting on this proposal.

[Pryssilvalia]

With all due respect, if you believe it then legislate it yourself - such legislation does not require international support. Furthermore, this is not for "ethical medical experimentation", it's for legalizing every practice, no matter how unsound or unethical, so long as the patients agree to it, or perhaps even demand it.

I believe it is noted several times within the document that these medical experiments require consent of the patient through wrtten consent in language they can understand in laymans terms, we are not talking about doctors wandering about terpanning people willy nilly. Would the member perhaps be stating that most people would willingly give consent to a form that could possbly state '' opperation consists of shoving metal spikes through your spleen...for science?!'' that they would willingly accept such wildly irrational experimentations? There is such as thing in the medical community as a second opinion...

My dear, if everyone can understand medical procedures and their potential effect, perhaps medicine is not such a difficult discipline. In most cases, patients do not fully understand the full implication of their treatments, some of them do, some of them do not, that's why there exists such a thing as patients demanding or accepting treatments that are not in their own interest, that's why there exists laws against controversial/simply ineffective treatments in the first place, to prevent people from demanding/offering such treatments, regardless of consent.

[Connopolis]

I believe it is noted several times within the document that these medical experiments require consent of the patient through wrtten consent in language they can understand in laymans terms, we are not talking about doctors wandering about terpanning people willy nilly. Would the member perhaps be stating that most people would willingly give consent to a form that could possbly state '' opperation consists of shoving metal spikes through your spleen...for science?!'' that they would willingly accept such wildly irrational experimentations? There is such as thing in the medical community as a second opinion...

On the other hand you do make a convincing argument about national legislation, I shall be abstaining from voting on this proposal.

Your honorable excellency, not all resolutions are aimed to benefit individual nations; in this case, the resolution's scope affects the international community of sapient beings who are denied medical recourse due to their nation's ethical views; views in which they may personally disagree with. Compounded, as nations progress internationally in healthcare, cooperation will ensure that most, if not all nations have substantial medical care. I truly hope your excellency reconsiders.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

I believe it is noted several times within the document that these medical experiments require consent of the patient through wrtten consent in language they can understand in laymans terms, we are not talking about doctors wandering about terpanning people willy nilly. Would the member perhaps be stating that most people would willingly give consent to a form that could possbly state '' opperation consists of shoving metal spikes through your spleen...for science?!'' that they would willingly accept such wildly irrational experimentations? There is such as thing in the medical community as a second opinion...

My dear, if everyone can understand medical procedures and their potential effect, perhaps medicine is not such a difficult discipline. In most cases, patients do not fully understand the full implication of their treatments, some of them do, some of them do not, that's why there exists such a thing as patients demanding or accepting treatments that are not in their own interest, that's why there exists laws against controversial/simply ineffective treatments in the first place, to prevent people from demanding/offering such treatments, regardless of consent.

Your excellency, you are assuming that an enterprise would release a highly ineffective form of medicine to the public, in which only outliers would accept due to ignorance. Such a small faction would pursue this treatment, that it would not be profitable enough to be frequently used. You must take into consideration that most enterprises function economically, therefore, they will most likely refrain from pursuing research that will most likely end up as unpopular.

Yours in explaining this for the umpteenth time,

OOC: I don't mean to sound rude, but do you have any experience in basic medicinal economics? Or at least a human resource? Your understanding of it, while based on reasonable logic, isn't' accurate.

[Pryssilvalia]

Ambassador, I am growing weary of this. Please, do not take offense to this, but this is basic economics.

Nation A dislikes Bananas as a whole.
Company A sells Bananas in Nation A.
Conjecture: If nation A dislikes bananas, Company A will not be profitable in selling bananas in Nation A.

If by chance, the treatment was made available, then it would most likely be effective, yet controversial. If medical professionals choose to practice a controversial, unpopular medical practice in a nation that disapproves of this treatment, can it be assumed that only those that want the treatment will receive it? It seems as if your excellency is intent on forcing your ethics down the throats of all citizens, regardless of their views. Such practices violate the very terms of government, as stated by the Lockean Social Contract, as well as many prominent philosophers. If your nation dislikes international cooperation, medical progress, and unethical practices, I advise you resign from this body immediately, as it seems you've forgotten about the multitude of other resolutions that are considered equally unethical?

My dear, calm down. Are we back at whether the patient's right supersedes the society's ethics again? Like I said, my good friend, there is harm in denying society's ethics, and I have given plenty of examples where patients demand treatments that are simply barbaric and ineffective. You are the one who keeps repeating arguments, not me. I'm not forcing my own ethics, since democratic processes will, I hope, ensure that the populace's wish is followed.

It is laughable that you resort to mudslinging like our nation not liking international cooperation, medical progress, simply because we don't agree with your resolution. Turn down the narcissism, my good sir.

And perhaps you should be careful in declaring the WA as "unethical".

[Dizyntk]

And perhaps you should be careful in declaring the WA as "unethical".

"Actually that is one thing that most Ambassadors here can easily agree on. The WA is highly unethical, Ambassador"

[Connopolis]

Ambassador, I am growing weary of this. Please, do not take offense to this, but this is basic economics.

Nation A dislikes Bananas as a whole.
Company A sells Bananas in Nation A.
Conjecture: If nation A dislikes bananas, Company A will not be profitable in selling bananas in Nation A.

If by chance, the treatment was made available, then it would most likely be effective, yet controversial. If medical professionals choose to practice a controversial, unpopular medical practice in a nation that disapproves of this treatment, can it be assumed that only those that want the treatment will receive it? It seems as if your excellency is intent on forcing your ethics down the throats of all citizens, regardless of their views. Such practices violate the very terms of government, as stated by the Lockean Social Contract, as well as many prominent philosophers. If your nation dislikes international cooperation, medical progress, and unethical practices, I advise you resign from this body immediately, as it seems you've forgotten about the multitude of other resolutions that are considered equally unethical?

My dear, calm down. Are we back at whether the patient's right supersedes the society's ethics again? Like I said, my good friend, there is harm in denying society's ethics, and I have given plenty of examples where patients demand treatments that are simply barbaric and ineffective. You are the one who keeps repeating arguments, not me. I'm not forcing my own ethics, since democratic processes will, I hope, ensure that the populace's wish is followed.

It is laughable that you resort to mudslinging like our nation not liking international cooperation, medical progress, simply because we don't agree with your resolution. Turn down the narcissism, my good sir.

And perhaps you should be careful in declaring the WA as "unethical".

There was no snideness in that post, your excellency; that was a suggestion. In any event, you are omitting the crux of the entire argument; the fact that you are implying that:

a) A large majority of the WA's population is ignorant, and incapable of understanding basic medical referrals,
b) A private enterprise will release highly ineffective procedures to the public, knowing that they will not make a profit,
c) Doctors will intentionally lie about a patient's medical recourse, and will not lucidly explain the ramifications, which not only violates this resolution, but violates the Patient's Rights Act.

I also never implied that the World Assembly was unethical; from a religious view point, it is very immoral, however. It has become a precedent within the Halls of the General Assembly that sapient kind supersedes the Sacred Cow that is national government.

Yours,

[Pryssilvalia]

Your excellency, you are assuming that an enterprise would release a highly ineffective form of medicine to the public, in which only outliers would accept due to ignorance. Such a small faction would pursue this treatment, that it would not be profitable enough to be frequently used. You must take into consideration that most enterprises function economically, therefore, they will most likely refrain from pursuing research that will most likely end up as unpopular.

Yours in explaining this for the umpteenth time,

OOC: I don't mean to sound rude, but do you have any experience in basic medicinal economics? Or at least a human resource? Your understanding of it, while based on reasonable logic, isn't' accurate.

My dear, perhaps I am not well-versed in your so called "basic medicinal economics" or "human resource", but at least I think I have a reasonable mind.

You really need to calm down, I'm afraid you're not reading arguments very well, and I'm afraid you're grasping here. I agree, most medical enterprises will not offer treatments such as medical cannibalism, but like I have told you, there are wackos out there. What if the patient has loads of money - what if a patient in a ethically conservative country, offers an enterprise 10,000,000,000 USD, for him to eat a person's organs as part of his "treatment" - there is nothing preventing such an enterprise to not engage in such a transaction. We are dealing with extreme cases here, my dear. Part of the law making process is to think up of extreme cases, not just thinking everyone is reasonable. We need to think like wackos, wicked men, in order to make our laws truly fool-proof.

[Pryssilvalia]

And perhaps you should be careful in declaring the WA as "unethical".

"Actually that is one thing that most Ambassadors here can easily agree on. The WA is highly unethical, Ambassador"

Very well, my friend.

[Pryssilvalia]

There was no snideness in that post, your excellency; that was a suggestion. In any event, you are omitting the crux of the entire argument; the fact that you are implying that:

a) A large majority of the WA's population is ignorant, and incapable of understanding basic medical referrals,
b) A private enterprise will release highly ineffective procedures to the public, knowing that they will not make a profit,
c) Doctors will intentionally lie about a patient's medical recourse, and will not lucidly explain the ramifications, which not only violates this resolution, but violates the Patient's Rights Act.

I also never implied that the World Assembly was unethical; from a religious view point, it is very immoral, however. It has become a precedent within the Halls of the General Assembly that sapient kind supersedes the Sacred Cow that is national government.

Yours,

My dear friend, like I have told you in my previous post, I'm thinking up extreme cases. In order for laws and philosophy to be fool-proof, they need to provide for extreme cases. I'm not saying everyone is ignorant, I'm saying there exists madmen out there. I'm not saying private enterprise offering non-profitable treatment, but I'm saying sometimes wackos can be rich. I'm not saying all doctors will intentionally lie, but there exists wicked men out there.

[Connopolis]

Your excellency, you are assuming that an enterprise would release a highly ineffective form of medicine to the public, in which only outliers would accept due to ignorance. Such a small faction would pursue this treatment, that it would not be profitable enough to be frequently used. You must take into consideration that most enterprises function economically, therefore, they will most likely refrain from pursuing research that will most likely end up as unpopular.

Yours in explaining this for the umpteenth time,

OOC: I don't mean to sound rude, but do you have any experience in basic medicinal economics? Or at least a human resource? Your understanding of it, while based on reasonable logic, isn't' accurate.

My dear, perhaps I am not well-versed in your so called "basic medicinal economics" or "human resource", but at least I think I have a reasonable mind.

You really need to calm down, I'm afraid you're not reading arguments very well, and I'm afraid you're grasping here. I agree, most medical enterprises will not offer treatments such as medical cannibalism, but like I have told you, there are wackos out there. What if the patient has loads of money - what if a patient in a ethically conservative country, offers an enterprise 10,000,000,000 USD, for him to eat a person's organs as part of his "treatment" - there is nothing preventing such an enterprise to not engage in such a transaction. We are dealing with extreme cases here, my dear. Part of the law making process is to think up of extreme cases, not just thinking everyone is reasonable. We need to think like wackos, wicked men, in order to make our laws truly fool-proof.

Dr. Forshaw walked over to the ambassador, and put his old, withered hand on his shoulder.

"It seems that you're not used to General Assembly debates, my friend. This is considered ideally calm, but GA standards, as many delegates have resorted to steamrolling other delegations, burning down certain chambers of the building, and attempting to kill one another, mid-debate. However, you can't be blamed for not understanding the indignant nature of this August Assembly."

That example is wholly unrealistic, non-sensical, and unlikely. No company, ever, would pay any individual $10 Billion dollars to eat human organs; even if this was the case, I see no reason for the individual not to if he is consenting. The entire premise of your debate is derived from the assumption that this entire assembly adheres to your ethical code, which is false. The World Assembly - as it is widely known - holds the values of sapient-welfare above any ethical point of view, aside from macabre extremism. I strongly advise you read past resolutions - I've actually provided links in a former post in this thread - that are equally unethical in nature (from your viewpoint).

Yours,

[Quadrimmina]

There was no snideness in that post, your excellency; that was a suggestion. In any event, you are omitting the crux of the entire argument; the fact that you are implying that:

a) A large majority of the WA's population is ignorant, and incapable of understanding basic medical referrals,
b) A private enterprise will release highly ineffective procedures to the public, knowing that they will not make a profit,
c) Doctors will intentionally lie about a patient's medical recourse, and will not lucidly explain the ramifications, which not only violates this resolution, but violates the Patient's Rights Act.

I also never implied that the World Assembly was unethical; from a religious view point, it is very immoral, however. It has become a precedent within the Halls of the General Assembly that sapient kind supersedes the Sacred Cow that is national government.

Yours,

My dear friend, like I have told you in my previous post, I'm thinking up extreme cases. In order for laws and philosophy to be fool-proof, they need to provide for extreme cases. I'm not saying everyone is ignorant, I'm saying there exists madmen out there. I'm not saying private enterprise offering non-profitable treatment, but I'm saying sometimes wackos can be rich. I'm not saying all doctors will intentionally lie, but there exists wicked men out there.

What we feel the honored delegation from Pryssilvalia seems to be missing is the fact that this is all covered. Let me explain:

a) The mandate of informed consent (emphasis on 'informed') means that the person must be capable of understanding what is happening and must have it explained until they understand. Our IRB system is strict, and randomly sits in on the consent phase of clinical trials to ensure that consent is properly obtained. Also, subjects are interviewed randomly, and if they cannot discuss the study in a competent manner, then the entire study is audited to ensure informed consent. "Informed" and "consent" are all you need.
b) Ineffective procedures and pharmaceuticals will be revealed in the medical literature which is mandatorily included to be distributed amongst the international community, and they shall be stopped immediately when it is realized that they are ineffective.
c) The noble delegate from Connopolis has already considered this and given an appropriate response.

Now, back to us. When this resolution came onto my desk, it took one read to allow me to say clearly and concisely that we wholeheartedly SUPPORT this resolution and its intent in its current form. As a member nation with a long history of ensuring the sanctity and validity of medical research, we are glad to see another delegation propose such a thoughtful and important resolution. I should hope it passes with no controversy.

[Pryssilvalia]

My dear, perhaps I am not well-versed in your so called "basic medicinal economics" or "human resource", but at least I think I have a reasonable mind.

You really need to calm down, I'm afraid you're not reading arguments very well, and I'm afraid you're grasping here. I agree, most medical enterprises will not offer treatments such as medical cannibalism, but like I have told you, there are wackos out there. What if the patient has loads of money - what if a patient in a ethically conservative country, offers an enterprise 10,000,000,000 USD, for him to eat a person's organs as part of his "treatment" - there is nothing preventing such an enterprise to not engage in such a transaction. We are dealing with extreme cases here, my dear. Part of the law making process is to think up of extreme cases, not just thinking everyone is reasonable. We need to think like wackos, wicked men, in order to make our laws truly fool-proof.

Dr. Forshaw walked over to the ambassador, and put his old, withered hand on his shoulder.

"It seems that you're not used to General Assembly debates, my friend. This is considered ideally calm, but GA standards, as many delegates have resorted to steamrolling other delegations, burning down certain chambers of the building, and attempting to kill one another, mid-debate. However, you can't be blamed for not understanding the indignant nature of this August Assembly."

That example is wholly unrealistic, non-sensical, and unlikely. No company, ever, would pay any individual $10 Billion dollars to eat human organs; even if this was the case, I see no reason for the individual not to if he is consenting. The entire premise of your debate is derived from the assumption that this entire assembly adheres to your ethical code, which is false. The World Assembly - as it is widely known - holds the values of sapient-welfare above any ethical point of view, aside from macabre extremism. I strongly advise you read past resolutions - I've actually provided links in a former post in this thread - that are equally unethical in nature (from your viewpoint).

Yours,

If you read my "calm down" by its literal meaning, I'm afraid you're missing the entire point, but that does not matter.

The situation might be unlikely, but it is not impossible. In fact, if we have a wacko patient and a wacko doctor combination, or a rich wacko patient, or a extremely manipulative and wicked doctor - with your resolution, frankly, anything can happen so long as it doesn't go beyond your "macabre extremism", but you don't care about that do you? I'm afraid those people will cruise through their wicked acts, without anyone being able to interfere, for the WA is fully supportive.

Frankly, I'm sad to see that you've finally given up by lamely saying "that's who I am, my friend, your rule is not my rule", but I might have expected too much. If that's how you think, I'm afraid no argument can go any further. I do hope that other nations can consider carefully my arguments, and choose for themselves.

[Alqania]

"Wackos? Madmen? Backwards?" Lord Raekevik stared at the Ambassador from Pryssilvalia. "Your Excellency, the remains of sapient beings can be useful sources for medicinal substances. And in a nation where cannibalism is legal, dietary medical advice may include recommendations to consume the flesh of humans and other sapient beings or products made from their organs, blood or other body parts. Is Your Excellency arguing that it is impossible to practice cannibalism ethically?

How could the whim of society be construed a reasonable method to decide what medical practices are ethical? The Queendom remains confident that ethical considerations in research should be made by scientists, not by legislators."

I can't believe I'm hearing this, but that just shows you that my example this time is not a stretch of "controversial treatment" at all. Medical cannibalism? For God's sake, have some of us sunken so low as to keep practicing those medieval methods? I don't deny it might give some benefit to the patients, but surely modern medicine can produce other better substitutes?

Please, my dear sir, have you not read the latter part of my speech? Do you understand the enormous risk to public order in denying the wish of the society as a whole? Scientists have never been the best ethicist - in fact, no single group can decide what's ethically sensible or not, but the whole society at large, and we statesmen, legislators, try to represent the wish of the people, not the scientists alone. The "whim" of society is a powerful force, my good sir, very powerful, and I recommend that you pay attention to it. Sometimes, going against the will of society might be wise, but most often it isn't. And I am not ready to accept a resolution that would deny the "whim" of society once and for all.

"Most of the cannibalism practised in Alqania is motivated by religion, not medicine. The followers of said religion will prefer cannibalistic sources to synthetic ones, when they produce the same effect. Alqanian healthcare professionals have knowledge in the field and can properly advice patients that have such a preference. Just because something was practised a long time ago does not mean it is outdated and a more modern approach to a problem is not necessarily any better than a more traditional one.

Your Excellency seems to argue on the assumption that we are all democracies. The Queendom is not; our legislature is Her Majesty the Queen. And even then, when our legislature is such an exalted, noble, compassionate monarch ruling with the mandate of the Houses and the Gods, we are confident that ethical considerations in research should be made by scientists. Her Majesty may outlaw any type of research, but Her Majesty generally does not.

Her Majesty's Government is not and will not be held hostage by the whim of society and the popularity contests some nations refer to as fair elections. The Alqanian populace are loyal subjects of Her Majesty and the stable, predictable rule of the Crown is excellent at maintaining public order, contentedness and happiness."

[Pryssilvalia]

My dear friend, like I have told you in my previous post, I'm thinking up extreme cases. In order for laws and philosophy to be fool-proof, they need to provide for extreme cases. I'm not saying everyone is ignorant, I'm saying there exists madmen out there. I'm not saying private enterprise offering non-profitable treatment, but I'm saying sometimes wackos can be rich. I'm not saying all doctors will intentionally lie, but there exists wicked men out there.

What we feel the honored delegation from Pryssilvalia seems to be missing is the fact that this is all covered. Let me explain:

a) The mandate of informed consent (emphasis on 'informed') means that the person must be capable of understanding what is happening and must have it explained until they understand. Our IRB system is strict, and randomly sits in on the consent phase of clinical trials to ensure that consent is properly obtained. Also, subjects are interviewed randomly, and if they cannot discuss the study in a competent manner, then the entire study is audited to ensure informed consent. "Informed" and "consent" are all you need.
b) Ineffective procedures and pharmaceuticals will be revealed in the medical literature which is mandatorily included to be distributed amongst the international community, and they shall be stopped immediately when it is realized that they are ineffective.
c) The noble delegate from Connopolis has already considered this and given an appropriate response.

Now, back to us. When this resolution came onto my desk, it took one read to allow me to say clearly and concisely that we wholeheartedly SUPPORT this resolution and its intent in its current form. As a member nation with a long history of ensuring the sanctity and validity of medical research, we are glad to see another delegation propose such a thoughtful and important resolution. I should hope it passes with no controversy.

My friend, if I suddenly have a craving for human flesh, I simply need to go to a doctor, saying that I have some XYZ disease that in the past, is treated by cannibalism, paying him 20 billions dollars and telling him that I want eating corpses as part of my treatment. But you don't really care if I engage in cannibalism do you?