[PASSED] Freedom in Medical Research

[Dizyntk]

"There are, in MT nations, things such as volume expanders and artificial blood cell growth hormones as well as intra-operative and post-operative blood salvaging from the patients themselves. This does not even begin to get into PMT- FT nations that may have fully artificial blood substitutes. And if, for the sake of argument, a patient needs a treatment that there is no substitute for and said treatment is banned in their nation, I hate to sound callous but so what? I see no reason to foist a procedure on a nation that it finds reprehensible for the sake of one or two individuals."

[Connopolis]

"There are, in MT nations, things such as volume expanders and artificial blood cell growth hormones as well as intra-operative and post-operative blood salvaging from the patients themselves. This does not even begin to get into PMT- FT nations that may have fully artificial blood substitutes. And if, for the sake of argument, a patient needs a treatment that there is no substitute for and said treatment is banned in their nation, I hate to sound callous but so what? I see no reason to foist a procedure that a nation finds reprehensible for the sake of one or two individuals."

Your highness, forgive me for my scathing tone, but you're missing the point; the question was rhetorical. The harrowing hypocrisy being spewed from the NatSovs right now is tremendous - the World Assembly has no right intervening in their policy, yet they reserve the right to force morals down the throats of their citizens, regardless of their condition medically, religiously, socially, or economically. What no one has justified is why nations can determine what their patients can, and can't do in regards to medical treatment. If the general populace disagrees - good for them! - the individual reserves sole authority over their own life, and doesn't deserve to be killed by greedy nations that find it necessary to interpret morals as natural law.

Yours vomiting,

[Dizyntk]

"There are, in MT nations, things such as volume expanders and artificial blood cell growth hormones as well as intra-operative and post-operative blood salvaging from the patients themselves. This does not even begin to get into PMT- FT nations that may have fully artificial blood substitutes. And if, for the sake of argument, a patient needs a treatment that there is no substitute for and said treatment is banned in their nation, I hate to sound callous but so what? I see no reason to foist a procedure that a nation finds reprehensible for the sake of one or two individuals."

Your highness, forgive me for my scathing tone, but you're missing the point; the question was rhetorical. The harrowing hypocrisy being spewed from the NatSovs right now is tremendous - the World Assembly has no right intervening in their policy, yet they reserve the right to force morals down the throats of their citizens, regardless of their condition medically, religiously, socially, or economically. What no one has justified is why nations can determine what their patients can, and can't do in regards to medical treatment. If the general populace disagrees - good for them! - the individual reserves sole authority over their own life, and doesn't deserve to be killed by greedy nations that find it necessary to interpret morals as natural law.

Yours vomiting,

"They do not have sole authority over their own life. Any nations that have laws recognizes this. There are always things that individuals are prevented from doing in a structured society, even things that arguably do not affect others. I also take offense that we are somehow greedy simply because we have a firm set of principals. indeed I would argue that is those who have no principals or beliefs that are the most likely to become greedy."
Feyalisa then calls building maintenence to bring Dr. Forshaw a mop.

[Connopolis]

Your highness, forgive me for my scathing tone, but you're missing the point; the question was rhetorical. The harrowing hypocrisy being spewed from the NatSovs right now is tremendous - the World Assembly has no right intervening in their policy, yet they reserve the right to force morals down the throats of their citizens, regardless of their condition medically, religiously, socially, or economically. What no one has justified is why nations can determine what their patients can, and can't do in regards to medical treatment. If the general populace disagrees - good for them! - the individual reserves sole authority over their own life, and doesn't deserve to be killed by greedy nations that find it necessary to interpret morals as natural law.

Yours vomiting,

"They do not have sole authority over their own life. Any nations that have laws recognizes this. There are always things that individuals are prevented from doing in a structured society, even things that arguably do not affect others. I also take offense that we are somehow greedy simply because we have a firm set of principals. indeed I would argue that is those who have no principals or beliefs that are the most likely to become greedy."
Feyalisa then calls building maintenence to bring Dr. Forshaw a mop.

Interesting. So it appears that John Smith can't recieve his prefered treatment due to a set a ethics that he doesn't believe in. Although I do find this slightly confusing - denying John his treatment due to morals in which the government believes in, while he does not is bad enough (national governments are Sacred Cows apparently, therefore, their beliefs supersede both those of its constituents, as well as the WA); however the crux is that letting him die is perfectly moral? Are these morals flexible in the sense that they only apply when convenient to the Sacred Cow that is national government? Have these governments created lists of government sponsored medical treatments that one can recieve, and which ones involve the patient's imminent death?

*Dr. Forshaw began to clean the pile of stomach acid from the floor, although he continued to vomit*

Yours in vomiting for the umpteenth time,

[Dizyntk]

"They do not have sole authority over their own life. Any nations that have laws recognizes this. There are always things that individuals are prevented from doing in a structured society, even things that arguably do not affect others. I also take offense that we are somehow greedy simply because we have a firm set of principals. indeed I would argue that is those who have no principals or beliefs that are the most likely to become greedy."
Feyalisa then calls building maintenence to bring Dr. Forshaw a mop.

Interesting. So it appears that John Smith can't recieve his prefered treatment due to a set a ethics that he doesn't believe in. Although I do find this slightly confusing - denying John his treatment due to morals in which the government believes in, while he does not is bad enough (national governments are Sacred Cows apparently, therefore, their beliefs supersede both those of its constituents, as well as the WA); however the crux is that letting him die is perfectly moral? Are these morals flexible in the sense that they only apply when convenient to the Sacred Cow that is national government? Have these governments created lists of government sponsored medical treatments that one can recieve, and which ones involve the patient's imminent death?

*Dr. Forshaw began to clean the pile of stomach acid from the floor, although he continued to vomit*

Yours in vomiting for the umpteenth time,

"Like it or not, Dr. Forshaw, there are religious based governments and even full blown Theocracies in the WA. In those cases I would think that the set of morals they adhere to are not flexible even when it comes to government officials. Of course there are plenty of hypocrits around so I should probably be careful saying such things. If it were the case of one individual's life versus my nation's societal beliefs then, yes, letting her die is the more palatable choice. Note I did not say moral. There are many choices in which neither decision is a moral one. Sometimes there are only two bad choices. You make the one that you believe to be best and then drink plenty of stomach medicine the next day."

[Connopolis]

Interesting. So it appears that John Smith can't recieve his prefered treatment due to a set a ethics that he doesn't believe in. Although I do find this slightly confusing - denying John his treatment due to morals in which the government believes in, while he does not is bad enough (national governments are Sacred Cows apparently, therefore, their beliefs supersede both those of its constituents, as well as the WA); however the crux is that letting him die is perfectly moral? Are these morals flexible in the sense that they only apply when convenient to the Sacred Cow that is national government? Have these governments created lists of government sponsored medical treatments that one can recieve, and which ones involve the patient's imminent death?

*Dr. Forshaw began to clean the pile of stomach acid from the floor, although he continued to vomit*

Yours in vomiting for the umpteenth time,

"Like it or not, Dr. Forshaw, there are religious based governments and even full blown Theocracies in the WA. In those cases I would think that the set of morals they adhere to are not flexible even when it comes to government officials. Of course there are plenty of hypocrits around so I should probably be careful saying such things. If it were the case of one individual's life versus my nation's societal beliefs then, yes, letting her die is the more palatable choice. Note I did not say moral. There are many choices in which neither decision is a moral one. Sometimes there are only two bad choices. You make the one that you believe to be best and then drink plenty of stomach medicine the next day."

An the crux of the hypocrisy has become quite evident, as you acknowledged; letting the individual die is not moral, although the reasoning behind it is based upon said morals. I cannot emphasize this enough, your highness; morals do not trump sapient life. This has become a precedent, as many proposals that protect the rights of sapient-kind normally contradict standard ethics.

For example,

1. GAR#16
2. GAR#39
3. GAR#41
4. GAR#54

...and many more. While the beliefs of theocracies are preserved, they must allow their citizens access to all of these privelages. Using similar logic, if the theocracy's citizens disagreed with the treatment as a majority, would it be plausable to argue that only those who shared similar beliefs would live in an area built on said beliefs...?

Yours,

[Dizyntk]

"Like it or not, Dr. Forshaw, there are religious based governments and even full blown Theocracies in the WA. In those cases I would think that the set of morals they adhere to are not flexible even when it comes to government officials. Of course there are plenty of hypocrits around so I should probably be careful saying such things. If it were the case of one individual's life versus my nation's societal beliefs then, yes, letting her die is the more palatable choice. Note I did not say moral. There are many choices in which neither decision is a moral one. Sometimes there are only two bad choices. You make the one that you believe to be best and then drink plenty of stomach medicine the next day."

An the crux of the hypocrisy has become quite evident, as you acknowledged; letting the individual die is not moral, although the reasoning behind it is based upon said morals. I cannot emphasize this enough, your highness; morals do not trump sapient life. This has become a precedent, as many proposals that protect the rights of sapient-kind normally contradict standard ethics.

For example,

1. GAR#16
2. GAR#39
3. GAR#41
4. GAR#54

...and many more. While the beliefs of theocracies are preserved, they must allow their citizens access to all of these privelages. Using similar logic, if the theocracy's citizens disagreed with the treatment as a majority, would it be plausable to argue that only those who shared similar beliefs would live in an area built on said beliefs...?

Yours,

"And neither is violating the societal beliefs of your nation moral. Like i said sometimes there are no good choices. And I disagree, there are times when ones morals and principles are all that matters. As for the laws cited, well let us just say that they are very loopholeable. At least as far as the one that we disagree with is concerned. As for your last point, I conceed that the vast majority of the time this would be the case."

[Connopolis]

An the crux of the hypocrisy has become quite evident, as you acknowledged; letting the individual die is not moral, although the reasoning behind it is based upon said morals. I cannot emphasize this enough, your highness; morals do not trump sapient life. This has become a precedent, as many proposals that protect the rights of sapient-kind normally contradict standard ethics.

For example,

1. GAR#16
2. GAR#39
3. GAR#41
4. GAR#54

...and many more. While the beliefs of theocracies are preserved, they must allow their citizens access to all of these privelages. Using similar logic, if the theocracy's citizens disagreed with the treatment as a majority, would it be plausable to argue that only those who shared similar beliefs would live in an area built on said beliefs...?

Yours,

"And neither is violating the societal beliefs of your nation moral. Like i said sometimes there are no good choices. And I disagree, there are times when ones morals and principles are all that matters. As for the laws cited, well let us just say that they are very loopholeable. At least as far as the ones that we disagree with are concerned. As for your last point, I conceed that the vast majority of the time this would be the case."

Your honorable Princess Feyalisa, the point of the matter is that a precedent has been set in which individuals come before ethical outliers.


As you basically stated:

"I see no reason to foist a procedure on a nation precedent on sapient beings that they finds reprehensible for the sake of one or two individuals. outliers."

Yours in confusion,

[Herttora]

An the crux of the hypocrisy has become quite evident, as you acknowledged; letting the individual die is not moral, although the reasoning behind it is based upon said morals. I cannot emphasize this enough, your highness; morals do not trump sapient life. This has become a precedent, as many proposals that protect the rights of sapient-kind normally contradict standard ethics.

For example,

1. GAR#16
2. GAR#39
3. GAR#41
4. GAR#54

...and many more. While the beliefs of theocracies are preserved, they must allow their citizens access to all of these privelages. Using similar logic, if the theocracy's citizens disagreed with the treatment as a majority, would it be plausable to argue that only those who shared similar beliefs would live in an area built on said beliefs...?

Yours,

It is of course the classic thinking that the right of life trumps all. While this isn't a direct counter argument, take the fight for freedom. If life is indeed always and truly above all else, why do men fight willingly for freedom? War for principles is the fault of that theory.

Since the dawn of philosophy ethical theories have all been argued from example cases which played upon a shared belief that morality could be successfully determined by a group of "wise men" to use the classical term. If ever you have countered the morality of an act by giving some similar but more obviously wrong act and assuming they will agree it is wrong, then you have argued with this basis.

Knowing that, I can easily provide two examples of letting someone die, one in which most would agree is immoral, one which a significant number would agree is moral. If this is proven, then it is shown that "letting someone die" is an amoral action, both deontologically and consequentially and that some other factor within the discussion is what separates them.

A person is dying from allergic reaction to some food, the epipen is sitting on the table. Assuming you have every ability to administer the treatment (as nearly everyone does), and that there aren't some more rare and extreme circumstances, is it immoral not to help? Of course it is. Generally, immorality cannot result from inaction. However, there are cases in which rational "wise men" would agree is immoral.

You're a medic in battle. A soldier is on a cot in the field hospital with a serious wound. The soldier has lost quite a lot of blood, but more importantly has already been exposed to serious bacteria known to be resistant to your current supply of anti-biotics. You can give him a blood transfusion, and not only waste that blood but prolong his suffering until the infection ultimately kills him. Or, you can let him continue to crash. Is it clearly right to let him die? Maybe not, but you must admit quite a bit of the population would agree.

Consequentialists would state the deciding factor was the waste of blood in the second case, Kant would argue that it is breaking your oath not to treat every patient to the best of your ability.

In the first case consequentialists would argue that the epipen has little use to others and that this man will ultimately do more good alive than the epipen could do unused. Kant would argue that inaction cannot be immoral, but that to ignore such distress is an active avoidance and immoral.

So, I disagree with both of you. It isn't immoral to let someone die. It is immoral to allow certain circumstances that might lead to death. Both Kantian and Consequentialist arguments can be made for helping or leaving the extremely poor or injured.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

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,

Well, I for one don't support mutilating others for the purpose of treating another consenting individual. And that might happen if patients are desperate.

[Pryssilvalia]

Dr Forshaw, my dear sir, I admit that my previous example might have stretched the meaning of "treatment" a bit, but I would like to ask you a question. In the past of western medicine, there is a belief that cannibalism will cure some diseases (please look for "medical cannibalism"), and it did work, albeit not very often, but still it was legitimately "treatment". It's in the past, sir, but there are still wackos out there, Dr Forshaw, real madmen, or perhaps just really backwards, who still believe in such practice. What if they demand such treatment sir? Does the "whim" of society not matter here, my dear Dr Forshaw, or shall we just allow those madmen to do freely as they like?

Reproductive human cloning has been proposed as a solution for the continuing trend of lack of organ transplant, that is, grow a fully functional clone, kill it, and take the organs. Do you want to support such treatment, sir?

Dr Forshaw, you do not seem to understand the real weight of allowing every controversial treatment. Of course, one government can freely outlaw many treatments and attempt to find a loophole around this resolution, so I am not against this resolution as it is now, but I wish to show you that the society has the right to determine what is and what is not a sensible treatment. Many treatments have ridiculously low to no benefit, but it involves extreme cost to humanity - not every controversial treatment can save a person, some only manage to sustain them for a very short period, at ridiculous economic cost, and sometimes with serious ethical issue. To not consider the society's wish will inflict grievous damage - it might disillusion the populace in the government, cause serious public disorder - might even lead to acts of terrorism, and I warn you, the citizens in those theocratic states can be merciless. Can you even begin to imagine what the result of legalizing abortion, embryonic stem cells treatment at those fervent and zealous theocratic states? You might save, or worse, sustain a life for a short period of time, at the cost of many other lives as the result of such social strife. Denying the moral conscience of the populace can have serious damage, I assure you - this is, as the dear Princess has told, the choice between two evils, and we must choose the choice that leads to less damage to everyone at large, that is what a statesman should do when facing such a choice, even though it might involve the death of a few.

Human life is important, but sometimes, the welfare of society as a whole might turn out to be even more important. Have you ever faced the decision of introducing a project that would save a few people, but will cost the society billions of dollars?

[Alqania]

Dr Forshaw, my dear sir, I admit that my previous example might have stretched the meaning of "treatment" a bit, but I would like to ask you a question. In the past of western medicine, there is a belief that cannibalism will cure some diseases (please look for "medical cannibalism"), and it did work, albeit not very often, but still it was legitimately "treatment". It's in the past, sir, but there are still wackos out there, Dr Forshaw, real madmen, or perhaps just really backwards, who still believe in such practice. What if they demand such treatment sir? Does the "whim" of society not matter here, my dear Dr Forshaw, or shall we just allow those madmen to do freely as they like?

Reproductive human cloning has been proposed as a solution for the continuing trend of lack of organ transplant, that is, grow a fully functional clone, kill it, and take the organs. Do you want to support such treatment, sir?

Dr Forshaw, you do not seem to understand the real weight of allowing every controversial treatment. Of course, one government can freely outlaw many treatments and attempt to find a loophole around this resolution, so I am not against this resolution as it is now, but I wish to show you that the society has the right to determine what is and what is not a sensible treatment. Many treatments have ridiculously low to no benefit, but it involves extreme cost to humanity - not every controversial treatment can save a person, some only manage to sustain them for a very short period, at ridiculous economic cost, and sometimes with serious ethical issue. To not consider the society's wish will inflict grievous damage - it might disillusion the populace in the government, cause serious public disorder - might even lead to acts of terrorism, and I warn you, the citizens in those theocratic states can be merciless. Can you even begin to imagine what the result of legalizing abortion, embryonic stem cells treatment at those fervent and zealous theocratic states? You might save, or worse, sustain a life for a short period of time, at the cost of many other lives as the result of such social strife. Denying the moral conscience of the populace can have serious damage, I assure you - this is, as the dear Princess has told, the choice between two evils, and we must choose the choice that leads to less damage to everyone at large, that is what a statesman should do when facing such a choice, even though it might involve the death of a few.

Human life is important, but sometimes, the welfare of society as a whole might turn out to be even more important. Have you ever faced the decision of introducing a project that would save a few people, but will cost the society billions of dollars?

"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."

[Connopolis]

(Second Draft)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Well, I must agree with the Mousebumples ambassador Nikolas Eberhart, and recommend that the draft should be stripped to focus on clauses 1 and 2. I think it is certainly worth a try.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Pryssilvalia]

"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.

[Pryssilvalia]

(6) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in advertisements; in the case that false claims are made, governments may prosecute them accordingly.

It's not feasible to print all those information on the vessel. Current practice is to print those information in a piece of paper inside the vessel, and that piece of paper is rather large.

[Connopolis]

"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.

Your excellency, surely you realize that your statement is the point of the clause. If this form of research is so barbaric, a nation must advance past that point in order to progress to more ethical forms of treatment. However, stating that partaking in these treatments will cause public uproar is simply non-sensical. Abortion is highly controversial, yet thousands of fetuses are aborted daily without the fabric of society unweaving. I shall do my best to draft a clause that prevents treatments that severely breach universal ethics, to accommodate for your excellency's qualms.

Yours,

[Pryssilvalia]

Your excellency, surely you realize that your statement is the point of the clause. If this form of research is so barbaric, a nation must advance past that point in order to progress to more ethical forms of treatment. However, stating that partaking in these treatments will cause public uproar is simply non-sensical. Abortion is highly controversial, yet thousands of fetuses are aborted daily without the fabric of society unweaving. I shall do my best to draft a clause that prevents treatments that severely breach universal ethics, to accommodate for your excellency's qualms.
Yours,

My dear, perhaps you don't understand that there will always be some people, due to perhaps ignorance, religious superstition, or simply madness, demand such a treatment, even when our medicine has passed those stages. And perhaps there are mad doctors who recommend such treatment as well. Laws exist to prevent those madmen practice such methods, but this resolution has just rendered those laws null.

Abortion is highly controversial, yes, but currently it's only legal in some countries where most people are either apathetic towards the issue, or quite liberal about it. And it's legal because the democratic state decides it to be so - i.e. more than 50% of the representatives agree to it, demonstrating, if you believe in democratic processes as I do, that more than 50% of the populace supports it. But what will happen if you legalize it in some theocratic states, that's my point dear sir. Did you not read my speech? The problem with this resolution is that it is universal - it assumes everyone's ethical system is universal, well, you must see, ethics isn't universal at all - it's laced with cultural differences, traditions, religious beliefs. I am not saying that those beliefs are necessarily right, but to suddenly deny those beliefs of the populace is asking for public disorder, even terrorist act.

[Connopolis]

Your excellency, surely you realize that your statement is the point of the clause. If this form of research is so barbaric, a nation must advance past that point in order to progress to more ethical forms of treatment. However, stating that partaking in these treatments will cause public uproar is simply non-sensical. Abortion is highly controversial, yet thousands of fetuses are aborted daily without the fabric of society unweaving. I shall do my best to draft a clause that prevents treatments that severely breach universal ethics, to accommodate for your excellency's qualms.
Yours,

My dear, perhaps you don't understand that there will always be some people, due to perhaps ignorance, religious superstition, or simply madness, demand such a treatment, even when our medicine has passed those stages.

Abortion is highly controversial, yes, but currently it's only legal in some countries that most people are either apathetic towards the issue, or quite liberal about it. And it's legal because the democratic state decides it to be so - i.e. more than 50% of the representatives agree to it, demonstrating, if you believe in democratic processes as I do, that more than 50% of the populace supports it. But what will happen if you legalize it in some theocratic states, that's my point dear sir. Did you not read my speech? The problem with this resolution is that it is universal - it assumes everyone's ethical system is universal, well, you must see, ethics isn't universal at all - it's laced with cultural differences, traditions, religious beliefs. I am not saying that those beliefs are necessarily right, but to suddenly deny those beliefs of the populace is asking for public disorder, even terrorist act.

Your excellency, before this continues, please, give me an example of widespread panic/disorder caused solely by the legalization of a medical treatment? Simply stating that personal ethics supersede the medical recourse of individuals is not necessarily an argument; it's an unfounded opinion.

Yours in waiting for an adequate example,

[Pryssilvalia]

Your excellency, before this continues, please, give me an example of widespread panic/disorder caused solely by the legalization of a medical treatment? Simply stating that personal ethics supersede the medical recourse of individuals is not necessarily an argument; it's an unfounded opinion.

Yours in waiting for an adequate example,

I don't have any example, because it's simply too stupid to legalize a practice that 90% of the populace is against.

[Connopolis]

Your excellency, before this continues, please, give me an example of widespread panic/disorder caused solely by the legalization of a medical treatment? Simply stating that personal ethics supersede the medical recourse of individuals is not necessarily an argument; it's an unfounded opinion.

Yours in waiting for an adequate example,

I don't have any example, because it's simply too stupid to legalize a practice that 90% of the populace is against.

Unfounded/unprovable assumptions aside, answer me this: from any economic perspective; is it economically sound to develop treatments and medical techniques in a nation in which an overwhelming majority oppose the treatment? It's simply not lucrative, and therefore, unrealistic. 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.

Yours,

[Pryssilvalia]

I don't have any example, because it's simply too stupid to legalize a practice that 90% of the populace is against.

Unfounded/unprovable assumptions aside, answer me this: from any economic perspective; is it economically sound to develop treatments and medical techniques in a nation in which an overwhelming majority oppose the treatment? It's simply not lucrative, and therefore, unrealistic. 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.

Yours,

Some practices were developed simply due to pure ignorance, sir. Some practices were historical and not further practiced anymore, but can still be considered "treatment" and fall within this resolution. Furthermore, a practice that some countries support does not mean every other country supports it.

[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.

[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

[Pryssilvalia]

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.