[PASSED] Freedom in Medical Research

[The Federal Rangers]

DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other sects of sapient well-being,

"Alright,an excellent start."

What are these "other sects of sapient well-being", and who belongs to them?

[Black Marne]

"Alright,an excellent start."

What are these "other sects of sapient well-being", and who belongs to them?

Well, I suppose there would be the wise cat-like people of Dizyntk, the citizen bears of the powerful nation of Bears Armed, and of course, my own people, the humanoid lizard Argonians, just to name a few prominent ones. Any other questions, esteemed ambassador?

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[The Federal Rangers]

Well, I suppose there would be the wise cat-like people of Dizyntk, the citizen bears of the powerful nation of Bears Armed, and of course, my own people, the humanoid lizard Argonians, just to name a few prominent ones.

We thank the learned ambassador - that could indeed be the case. Hopefully the connection to medical research will become more obvious once we have had the opportunity to study the whole proposal in more depth.

[Connopolis]

I strongly advise my fellow ambassadors to make any final revisions prior to submittal this Friday. As always, constructive criticism is much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

[Black Marne]

I cannot think of anything, for now. Give me a few days, perhaps I can.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Herttora]

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.

Not everything in the name of research is acceptable, regardless of consent or not. This is especially true in the case of legal guardianship. In the example of testing on children, must only the child know the ramifications or the guardians as well? Is it the guardian's consent that is required, the child's, or both? Also, how about when a serious and rare side-effect is caused, intentionally or not, by the provider? Does this clause make malpractice suits against research practices illegal?

I realize dangerous research practices are already protected against, but this statement allows any "controversial" treatment regardless of law, the only restriction implied is that of other bills.

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

The wording here states that any pharmaceutical company is guaranteed reduced restrictions regardless if those restrictions apply to their research or not. I'd rather it only provide protection for the specific research, and not the company as a whole. Also, I would request wording which specifies critical research throughout this bill. The point being that a company researching the next great weight loss pill doesn't need the protection of the WA, and certainly doesn't deserve protection from civil suit when their product causes serious ailment.

(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.

I feel this could be a bit fuzzy for two main reasons. First off is that off label use of drugs is a very common and almost always safe method of treatment (look up all the uses of Viagra). The reason this could be fuzzy is because how can a company possibly inform everyone of every consequence of taking the drug? They can't possibly know all of its uses. The second reason is directly related to the first. Many side-effects seen in medical trials are completely unrelated to the drug, but are listed in that study as a side effect anyway. I request the statement be rephrased to stress that they only need to list side effects that have a significant chance of occurring. Defining significant is your choice, but personally if they can be proven significant outliers then those side-effects aren't directly related to the drug.

(5) All forms of research that meet the criteria of this proposal shall be made accessible to the public without negative consequences directed towards the enterprise that formed the treatment, and member-states governments shall not alter the price in any way, nor shall they coerce medical professionals to abstain from utilizing it; albeit, medical professionals shall be made fully aware of the treatment prior to utilization.

Why can't a government run a smear campaign if they wish? A government should be allowed to coerce so long as that isn't through force, threat of harm, or threat of economic consequence. Also, I'm a bit worried about "shall not alter the price in any way". There are plenty of actions a government takes in complete justice that raises the price of a drug or treatment. Could you specify that they cannot increase the price for the purpose of discouraging sale, or would that leave too large a loophole?

(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,

So long as this does not include the actual process or any critical data to reproducing the treatment/drug this is fine with me. However, "as well as the procedures involved" makes me wonder if it doesn't give too much an open hand. It isn't clearly intended for that, but if it did it would eliminate all intellectual property and patenting in the medical industry, a serious threat to many companies. EDIT: To specify, patenting does release the information but since a patent takes ages to obtain the process must be kept secret. All a company must do if find the meat of a procedure and change a very few things for them to be able to submit a patent themselves. In other words, this might restrict hush contracts from businesses or governments.

There's things I would like to see changed, but not major changes. Overall, I support it.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We agree with the Herttora delegate that minors should be 'dealt with', companies should not run amok except in researching, prices should be changeable by normal economic measures like printing money, and patents should be protected.

However, we disagree that companies should have to disclose the problems: although clearly they can't give the whole list because the list would go on too long, they can always say things like 'this testing could cause A, B, C, and there is the possibility of other problems. However, the nations of X, Y, Z, and research consultancies Q, R, S, T have not found any evidence for the existence of any such other problems/ a probability higher than 1% of such events happening'. Thus we don't need to worry about defining what's significant: the people being tested can choose whether it's significant or not that there might be other things.

Finally, we're very disappointed with this:

Look Ma! No added bureaucracy!

Even more surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be any needed. We support this proposal.

[Connopolis]

(a) Indivudals under the national age of majority shall not participate in any experiments, without informed, written consent from both the individual, and their legal parent(s)/guardian(s).

I should hope this clause suffices. I figured that a nation wouldn't lower their age of majority just to find away around this clause, as that creates all sorts of problem.

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.

Yours in gratitude,

[Black Marne]

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.

Yours in gratitude,

There is a rather huge loophole there, but I'm not sure it's possible to fix.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Connopolis]

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.

Yours in gratitude,

There is a rather huge loophole there, but I'm not sure it's possible to fix.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

Might I ask what that loophole is? I'll see what I can do to fix it, if it's possible.

Yours,

[Herttora]

(a) Indivudals under the national age of majority shall not participate in any experiments, without informed, written consent from both the individual, and their legal parent(s)/guardian(s).

I should hope this clause suffices. I figured that a nation wouldn't lower their age of majority just to find away around this clause, as that creates all sorts of problem.

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.

Yours in gratitude,

These changes are exactly what I had in mind. As before, support.

[Black Marne]

There is a rather huge loophole there, but I'm not sure it's possible to fix.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

Might I ask what that loophole is? I'll see what I can do to fix it, if it's possible.

Yours,

It would be what is defined as "crucial". You could easily get a private company who demands a large grant to research a medicine that will, say, apparently increase the size of a male's....member. As opposed to a company that wants to make a drug to combat a deadly epidemic.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Matne

[Latanii]

As Ms.Ryberg mentioned in her evaluation, article 5 specificly,

"(5) All forms of research that meet the criteria of this proposal shall be made accessible to the public without negative consequences directed towards the enterprise that formed the treatment, and member-states governments shall not alter the price in any way, nor shall they coerce medical professionals to abstain from utilizing it; albeit, medical professionals shall be made fully aware of the treatment prior to utilization."

I also have a problem with this. I agree with your intentions; however, countries should be allowed to alter the price for example due to tariffs.

Furthermore, article 1 and 2 are in conflict since,
"(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment."

and article 2 states that:
"2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects."

However, i realize that preventiong and persecution are two different things, possible making my argument invaild. I figured it would be a worthwhile thing to note.

Yours,
Latanii

[Unibot II]

DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other sects of sapient well-being,

Eduard sipped his scotch from a juicebox, "I'm dumbfounded by both the cacology and unnecessariness of this clause."

[Arivali]

Ummm... no.... Take out the part about doctors being able to use controversial treatment, and me not being able to restrict such research, and I'll think about it. If it's controversial, I reserve the right to decide if it's what's best. Just because it might be helpful doesn't mean it's the only way to treat something.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I can only support this with a rider stating that "the World Assembly and individual nation-states reserve the concurrent authority to regulate any forms of medical treatment and/or research involving the infliction of severe and involuntary harm to human or other sapient beings".

[Connopolis]

Eduard sipped his scotch from a juicebox, "I'm dumbfounded by both the cacology and unnecessariness of this clause."

I quite like the clause, thank you.

Ummm... no.... Take out the part about doctors being able to use controversial treatment, and me not being able to restrict such research, and I'll think about it. If it's controversial, I reserve the right to decide if it's what's best. Just because it might be helpful doesn't mean it's the only way to treat something.

Ambassador, stymieing progress simply because one disagrees with the research is non-sensical. Your people, as do all sapient beings, reserve the right to quality, up-to-date healthcare, and no government should have the right to hinder that, unless it poses a direct threat to patients, test subjects, or others.

I can only support this with a rider stating that "the World Assembly and individual nation-states reserve the concurrent authority to regulate any forms of medical treatment and/or research involving the infliction of severe and involuntary harm to human or other sapient beings".

Ambassador, the Patient's Rights Act makes medical treatment available only if the individual presents informed consent. I highly doubt any informed patient would consent to highly macabre, ineffective treatments.

Yours,

[Herttora]

Eduard sipped his scotch from a juicebox, "I'm dumbfounded by both the cacology and unnecessariness of this clause."

I quite like the clause, thank you.

Ummm... no.... Take out the part about doctors being able to use controversial treatment, and me not being able to restrict such research, and I'll think about it. If it's controversial, I reserve the right to decide if it's what's best. Just because it might be helpful doesn't mean it's the only way to treat something.

Ambassador, stymieing progress simply because one disagrees with the research is non-sensical. Your people, as do all sapient beings, reserve the right to quality, up-to-date healthcare, and no government should have the right to hinder that, unless it poses a direct threat to patients, test subjects, or others.

I can only support this with a rider stating that "the World Assembly and individual nation-states reserve the concurrent authority to regulate any forms of medical treatment and/or research involving the infliction of severe and involuntary harm to human or other sapient beings".

Ambassador, the Patient's Rights Act makes medical treatment available only if the individual presents informed consent. I highly doubt any informed patient would consent to highly macabre, ineffective treatments.

Yours,

OOC: About restricting controversial treatments. There is a form of argument where you argue the most extreme case to get an understanding of the more reasonable. So, let's get silly. Deus Ex is real, specifically the augmentation issue. Now certainly many people would be willing to test this procedure, specifically people missing limbs. However, can you really say that nothing about people willingly cutting pieces of themselves off for mechanical replacement doesn't strike you as wrong? These extremely controversial topics do exist in real life, despite this fake example.

At the same time, any issue anyone has with a certain branch of research can be dealt with by limiting the implied issue. Let's assume the stem cells bill does not exist. The biggest issue with stem cell research was/is the over arching abortion issue. Without getting tied into any debate about abortion or that stem cells can be gathered from other places than a fetus, a nation could easily restrict the act of gaining a fetus to stop the research. Any attempt by this bill to stop that claiming it as an act to stop medical research would be tossed down instantly seeing that abortion is an issue far and above the research that could be garnered from a fetus.

I don't necessarily love that clause, but at the same time I realize I can restrict any form of research, should it be so truly against everything the majority of the people believe in, by non-direct means. I also like that it does protect people with what are considered crazy ideas. Very often in mathematics and physics to even suggest certain possibilities is controversial because it challenges what we know, as opposed to controversial medical research which often opposes what philosophically we believe to be right, or define ourselves as human in the hyperbole case.

In short, the clause is sticky, but it leaves enough room open for it to be ok, in my opinion.

[Flibbleites]

OOC: So, let's get silly. Deus Ex is real, specifically the augmentation issue. Now certainly many people would be willing to test this procedure, specifically people missing limbs. However, can you really say that nothing about people willingly cutting pieces of themselves off for mechanical replacement doesn't strike you as wrong?

OOC: Are you calling the basis of Max's latest book silly?

[Pryssilvalia]

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.

Well done, you've just legalized embryonic stem cell, fetal tissue implant, and many other treatments that, though sound in medical basis, have extensive ethical implications that a patient about to die would not care about, but others might. Look, controversial treatments have very good reason to be controversial, what you've just done is to legalize them all (albeit with the small requirement of consent, but that's really nothing). I don't think this is a wise move, ambassador.

Furthermore, the requirement of consent, or "made fully aware of the ramifications", is so vague that it might be too easy, or too difficult to satisfy. If a doctor say "this treatment has 30% chance of saving you and 70% of killing you", does that mean that the patient has been made fully aware of the ramifications, or does the doctor have to explain carefully how the treatment might kill the patient? Furthermore, ramifications of controversial treatment can be difficult to determine, since some of them are relatively new and untested. What if the result of the treatment does not fall within the expectation of the doctor or the patient, nor does it fall in the expectation of anyone in the medical world, does that mean that the patient hasn't been made fully aware of the ramifications? What if a doctor chooses a treatment that no other doctor would choose, making the patient agreeing to that treatment (and understanding its ramification) and subsequently kills him?

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

"Test subjects" as in, what? Humans? Animals? Foetus? How about aborted foetus?

[Connopolis]

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.

Well done, you've just legalized embryonic stem cell, fetal tissue implant, and many other treatments that, though sound in medical basis, have extensive ethical implications that a patient about to die would not care about, but others might. Look, controversial treatments have very good reason to be controversial, what you've just done is to legalize them all (albeit with the small requirement of consent, but that's really nothing). I don't think this is a wise move, ambassador.

Ambassador, that was the point. You seem to be arguing that the patient's prerogative is immaterial, and that others, mainly the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with? Controversial treatments are controversial due to personal beliefs, albeit, commonly held by the majority. However, the whim of the majority does not dictate whether John Smith shall live or die, despite his view on the topic. Even in most texts, such as Lockean Social Contract, the state is established to benefit the citizens; indirectly killing them off simply because the government disagrees is non-sensical at best.

Furthermore, the requirement of consent, or "made fully aware of the ramifications", is so vague that it might be too easy, or too difficult to satisfy. If a doctor say "this treatment has 30% chance of saving you and 70% of killing you", does that mean that the patient has been made fully aware of the ramifications...

Err . . . no, they've only been made partially aware of the ramifications... Either way, as is stated in prior resolutions (Patient's Right's Act), the patient is entitled to accept or decline the treatment. As the clause states, the patient must be made fully aware of the ramifications. Not partly, not mostly; fully.

...or does the doctor have to explain carefully how the treatment might kill the patient? Furthermore, ramifications of controversial treatment can be difficult to determine, since some of them are relatively new and untested. What if the result of the treatment does not fall within the expectation of the doctor or the patient, nor does it fall in the expectation of anyone in the medical world, does that mean that the patient hasn't been made fully aware of the ramifications? What if a doctor chooses a treatment that no other doctor would choose, making the patient agreeing to that treatment (and understanding its ramification) and subsequently kills him?

If the patient is fully aware of all possible complications, and the doctor proceeds, with the patient's consent, then this is legal, not due to this resolution, but again, because of the Patient's Rights Act. Granted, if the treatment is untested, or highly ineffective, the medical professional must explain this; I would see very little chance of a patient consenting to an untested or ineffective treatment...

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

"Test subjects" as in, what? Humans? Animals? Foetus? How about aborted foetus?

You seem to be banking on the fact that using human Fetuses is viewed as unethical in the eyes of all individuals, which I can assure you, is highly, highly incorrect. As a matter of fact, GAR#49 mandates that member-states fund all forms of stem-cell research, inclusive of embryonic. A test subject shall be defined, however, a fetus wouldn't necessarily be considered a test subject under most circumstances... it would be a material in which experiments were conducted.

Yours,

[Pryssilvalia]

Ambassador, that was the point. You seem to be arguing that the patient's prerogative is immaterial, and that others, mainly the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with? Controversial treatments are controversial due to personal beliefs, albeit, commonly held by the majority. However, the whim of the majority does not dictate whether John Smith shall live or die, despite his view on the topic. Even in most texts, such as Lockean Social Contract, the state is established to benefit the citizens; indirectly killing them off simply because the government disagrees is non-sensical at best.

Ah, are we all for killing foetus now? Fair enough. But I differ on your opinion that it is wrong that the general populace should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with. What if the only way for John Smith to survive is to kill another person (e.g. lack of organs for transplant, the only way is to kill someone to take the organ), and John Smith is all willing for killing another person to save himself? Does the "whim" of the majority not matter here, esteemed ambassador?

If the patient is fully aware of all possible complications, and the doctor proceeds, with the patient's consent, then this is legal, not due to this resolution, but again, because of the Patient's Rights Act. Granted, if the treatment is untested, or highly ineffective, the medical professional must explain this; I would see very little chance of a patient consenting to an untested or ineffective treatment...

I beg to differ. If the patient is made to believe that the sole treatment available is the treatment that the doctor proposes, you'll find that many will agree to such treatment, even if they are untested or have low chance of success, or even if there are better treatments around (that the patient does not know of). Frankly, this clause allows doctors to "experiment" on their patients freely, taking advantage of their ignorance and desperation.

[Connopolis]

Ambassador, that was the point. You seem to be arguing that the patient's prerogative is immaterial, and that others, mainly the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with? Controversial treatments are controversial due to personal beliefs, albeit, commonly held by the majority. However, the whim of the majority does not dictate whether John Smith shall live or die, despite his view on the topic. Even in most texts, such as Lockean Social Contract, the state is established to benefit the citizens; indirectly killing them off simply because the government disagrees is non-sensical at best.

Ah, are we all for killing foetus now? Fair enough. But I differ on your opinion that it is wrong that the general populace should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with. What if the only way for John Smith to survive is to kill another person (e.g. lack of organs for transplant, the only way is to kill someone to take the organ), and John Smith is all willing for killing another person to save himself? Does the "whim" of the majority not matter here, esteemed ambassador?

You seem to be equating stem cell research to murdering innocent civilians based on an individual's prerogative. There is a distinct differenec between a commonly recognized form of medical treatment, and senseless slaughter, your excellency.

If the patient is fully aware of all possible complications, and the doctor proceeds, with the patient's consent, then this is legal, not due to this resolution, but again, because of the Patient's Rights Act. Granted, if the treatment is untested, or highly ineffective, the medical professional must explain this; I would see very little chance of a patient consenting to an untested or ineffective treatment...

I beg to differ. If the patient is made to believe that the sole treatment available is the treatment that the doctor proposes, you'll find that many will agree to such treatment, even if they are untested or have low chance of success, or even if there are better treatments around (that the patient does not know of). Frankly, this clause allows doctors to "experiment" on their patients freely, taking advantage of their ignorance and desperation.

I'm lost; if the patient consents, and you (as you acknowledged in your own argument) that treatment is the only treatment available, despite its untested nature, why would a patient turn it down? Death is the only game you lose by not playing. Also, the Clinical Trials Act (forgive me if the name is incorrect, it's very late right now) mandates that all test subjects be informed of their participation in experiments, as well as the ramifications. Your point is either moot, or illegal due to prior legislation... Surely a doctor can't take advantage of a patient/test subjects ignorance/desperation if the individual is fully informed, fully consenting, and fully capable of declining the procedure at any point?

Yours in confusion,


OOC: Sorry for any typos; I'm using an iPad.

[Pryssilvalia]

You seem to be equating stem cell research to murdering innocent civilians based on an individual's prerogative. There is a distinct differenec between a commonly recognized form of medical treatment, and senseless slaughter, your excellency.

I only point out an obvious argument against your argument that it is wrong that "the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with". If you can't understand my point then there really isn't any point to go further.

I'm lost; if the patient consents, and you (as you acknowledged in your own argument) that treatment is the only treatment available, despite its untested nature, why would a patient turn it down? Death is the only game you lose by not playing. Also, the Clinical Trials Act (forgive me if the name is incorrect, it's very late right now) mandates that all test subjects be informed of their participation in experiments, as well as the ramifications. Your point is either moot, or illegal due to prior legislation... Surely a doctor can't take advantage of a patient/test subjects ignorance/desperation if the individual is fully informed, fully consenting, and fully capable of declining the procedure at any point?

Some doctors might not know if there are other treatments around (i.e. negligence) or they might intentionally hide the existence of other treatments in order to serve their own nefarious purposes. That is entirely my point. Taking the advantage of the patient's ignorance and desperation, the doctor is able to perform medical procedures that are inefficient or in fact even untested, so long as the patient is made fully aware of the ramifications of such treatment (and made unaware of other better treatments around).

[Black Marne]

You seem to be equating stem cell research to murdering innocent civilians based on an individual's prerogative. There is a distinct differenec between a commonly recognized form of medical treatment, and senseless slaughter, your excellency.

I only point out an obvious argument against your argument that it is wrong that "the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with". If you can't understand my point then there really isn't any point to go further.

Wait, wasn't that YOUR argument, esteemed ambassador?

I'm lost; if the patient consents, and you (as you acknowledged in your own argument) that treatment is the only treatment available, despite its untested nature, why would a patient turn it down? Death is the only game you lose by not playing. Also, the Clinical Trials Act (forgive me if the name is incorrect, it's very late right now) mandates that all test subjects be informed of their participation in experiments, as well as the ramifications. Your point is either moot, or illegal due to prior legislation... Surely a doctor can't take advantage of a patient/test subjects ignorance/desperation if the individual is fully informed, fully consenting, and fully capable of declining the procedure at any point?

Some doctors might not know if there are other treatments around (i.e. negligence) or they might intentionally hide the existence of other treatments in order to serve their own nefarious purposes. That is entirely my point. Taking the advantage of the patient's ignorance and desperation, the doctor is able to perform medical procedures that are inefficient or in fact even untested, so long as the patient is made fully aware of the ramifications of such treatment (and made unaware of other better treatments around).

Oh you MUST be kidding me, esteemed ambassador. The use of untested treatment when no other option available is when the MD uses it, telling the patient the full ramifications. To hide other possible treatments is ILLEGAL under this act, and perhaps also the Patient's Right Act.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne