[PASSED] Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"

[Mousebumples]

I'll have to admit, of the two repeals in question, this is the one I like more, and am more willing to support. There are three things that actually stood out for me:

1. The lack of detailed process for the harvesting of cells. This is the biggest one for me, and I would like to see, in a replacement, a detailed list of requirements for their harvest.
2. The lack of requirement for consent, although I think there is a resolution which could cover that. (Wasn't that brought up in the first medical practices bill?)
3. The lack of affordability and access clauses; again, this may be covered in a bill somewhere, or simply by nations' health care bills (although, in the case where the former does not exist, I think it's fair to assume that the latter may not exist).

I'll approve this, with the expectation of a decent replacement.

There are 3 (complementary) replacements already drafted that I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on.

Regarding your concerns:
(1) Personally, I feel that laying out a "detailed process for the harvesting of cells" could run into (A) micromanagement or (B) being outdated with developments of new technology and better procedures.
(2) But is the donation/harvesting of stem cells a "medical procedure" ? It's not actively treating anything for the individual who is donating the cells (the transplant/treatment is obviously a "medical procedure" but that's not really covered by this resolution, technically) ... how or why should it be subject to the other laws on the topic?
(3) So far as affordability and access goes, it might be covered under something, but the only resolution coming to mind off the topic of my head is "access to livesaving drugs" ... which I don't think stem cell treatments would necessarily qualify for.

Regardless, your support is welcomed on this repeal.

Cheers, etc.,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Mousebumples]

This proposal has been submitted! Delegates, please approve!

And this is the other repeal that I submitted last night and forgot to update the text over here in the thread. Like with Organ & Blood Transplants, the spacing is a bit off in the display, but when I copy/paste the text from there to here, the spacing is correct. *shrugs* Minor cosmetic glitch, I suppose.

Submitted Version

Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #49 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

DECLARES that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell treatments in WA member nations.

RECOGNIZES the shortcomings of this Resolution, which include:

1. The emphasis it places solely on stem-cell research:
   1. A broader base of support for innovative medical research may improve the overall health and well-being of individuals within WA member nations.
   2. Some nations may have access to technology that is more advanced than stem-cell research, which limits the usefulness of this resolution.
2. The requirement with regards to the WHA funding and conducting research into stem cells alone prevents the WHA from focusing its resources towards the most promising and effective research. Instead, the WHA is required to use their resources on stem cell research even in the face of technological advances which may make stem cell research obsolete.
3. The failure to ensure patient access and/or affordability of stem cell treatments resulting from the research and development covered in this resolution.
4. The automatic inclusion of "All breakthroughs and developments ... into the Public Domain" through this resolution waives the intellectual property rights of those who make groundbreaking discoveries and may also discourage, or at least slow, the development of new innovations.

REGRETS the lack of sufficient and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells as the resolution only states that “Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

NOTES that:

1. Consent - specifically uncoerced, informed consent - should be obtained from the donor or legal guardian of stem cell tissue, which is not required within this resolution.
2. Stem cells should be harvested as effectively and efficiently as possible, while minimizing the risk to the donor.
3. Demand for stem cells may have increased as a result of this resolution, which in turn may have resulted in unethical methods of stem cell harvesting and/or the exploitation of stem cell donors.

BELIEVES that individuals and/or private organizations that discover new stem cell innovations should retain their intellectual property rights for a period of time, in accordance with other international laws on the subject.

ACKNOWLEDGES that the World Assembly has previously affirmed the freedom of choice with regards to medical treatment and the right to medically essential drugs and treatment.

LAMENTS, however, the lack of sufficient protections for donors of stem cells within the text of this resolution.

UNDERSTANDS that this resolution is not only flawed and insufficient but may also serve as an impediment to the development of new innovations in medical technology and treatment.

ENCOURAGES the World Assembly to consider future legislation in order to promote the development of effective, cutting edge technologies in the fields of health and science.

REPEALS GAR#49, "Stem Cells For Greater Health."

Co-Authored by: Oliver the Mediocre

I mainly moved around a few clauses - and split out what is now the BELIEVES clause since it didn't really fit in the list above. For those looking for some amusement, I almost forgot to use the [nation=short] tag when crediting my coauthor, so ... yeah. That would have been a major whoops on my part.

Questions are more than welcome. Thanks!

[Mousebumples]

Thanks to everyone who has supported this repeal so far!

[Weed]

*sets alarms to wake up to vote for this at outset*

[Mousebumples]

*sets alarms to wake up to vote for this at outset*

I think it'll be Tuesday's minor, if my mental math/day counting is correct. I'll be at work when the vote starts, but hopefully I can sneak online at some point to vote before it gets to be too late. Not that my 4 votes will make or break things, but ... voting is fun. *beams*

[Weed]

*sets alarms to wake up to vote for this at outset*

I think it'll be Tuesday's minor, if my mental math/day counting is correct. I'll be at work when the vote starts, but hopefully I can sneak online at some point to vote before it gets to be too late. Not that my 4 votes will make or break things, but ... voting is fun. *beams*

/me pretends he wasn't in your other thread.

Could have used one thread for both.

[Mousebumples]

I think it'll be Tuesday's minor, if my mental math/day counting is correct. I'll be at work when the vote starts, but hopefully I can sneak online at some point to vote before it gets to be too late. Not that my 4 votes will make or break things, but ... voting is fun. *beams*

/me pretends he wasn't in your other thread.

Could have used one thread for both.

Yeah, I could have, but trying to debate two different repeals in one thread? Seems complicated.

And then the At Vote stage? Eeesh.

[Weed]

/me pretends he wasn't in your other thread.

Could have used one thread for both.

Yeah, I could have, but trying to debate two different repeals in one thread? Seems complicated.

And then the At Vote stage? Eeesh.

The drafting would have been hard, but I think the at vote would have flown smoothly. The potential for a [PASSED&FAILED] thread in archives would be cool, too.

I am curious of one thing, and forgive me if I missed it in one of the threads, are you planning to submit the three replacements all at once? It would make it easier for campaigning but I'm wondering if you've thought about people getting tired of voting on medical resolutions and vote differently based on that? Just a thought.

[Mousebumples]

I am curious of one thing, and forgive me if I missed it in one of the threads, are you planning to submit the three replacements all at once? It would make it easier for campaigning but I'm wondering if you've thought about people getting tired of voting on medical resolutions and vote differently based on that? Just a thought.

... Maybe?

I'm pretty confident that the Human Rights & Education proposals are in near-submission state, so those will go into the queue together, for sure. I'm not as comfortable with the current version of the Free Trade res, so that one might be delayed a bit longer for more drafting, etc. I would probably end up submitting it within a month or so (depending on debate, etc.) - probably with my Child Protection Act repeal. (All of the above, of course, is provided that there aren't any major points brought up during the At Vote stage on either repeal that would necessitate a major revision of any of those drafts that is presently unforeseen.)

Of course, I keep hoping that I'll wake up one morning and discover that BOOM! we have a Healthcare category! I'd really much rather submit that one under a generic Healthcare category, and while I could probably stretch it to Social Justice, I think Free Trade is the best option (for now).

Does that answer your question? I've been thinking about this in the past few days. Depending on what the mods rule (re: submitting replacements before repeals officially pass), I may submit all 3 of the replacements for a campaign-free trial run while they're At Vote. Of course, with my luck, they'd get quorum out of order, which would mess up my organizational plan ...

[Weed]

Yes for the most part. Thanks for answering.

[Mousebumples]

Yes for the most part. Thanks for answering.

No problem! Sorry your answer was such a rambly "all over the place" mess ...

[Knootoss]

Supported and approved!


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Mousebumples]

Supported and approved!

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Many thanks for your support!

[Unibot II]

OOC: Good luck on this one tommorow, Mouse. I'll be at work, so I won't be able to see the fireworks. But I hope you get a good starting hour of voting!

[Mousebumples]

OOC: Good luck on this one tommorow, Mouse. I'll be at work, so I won't be able to see the fireworks. But I hope you get a good starting hour of voting!

I'll be at work too, but if I can arrange to take a break around noon EST, I'll be surreptitiously checking the vote (and voting!) on my phone.

Not to double post - because I'm planning to post a WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE YES bit in a little bit - but I figured this deserves its own response.

But you (and everyone) should vote yes. *nods* Because getting this resolution repealed and replaced with something better is something all WA member nations (and stem cell donors, and stem cell innovators) really do deserve.

[Mousebumples]

Why you should vote in favor:

• There is no consent requirement for the donation or harvesting of stem cells. Since, arguably, the donation/harvesting of stem cells is not a medical procedure (after all, it's generally not treating or curing any sort of medical condition in the donor), it is not covered under the Patient's Rights Act. This lack of consent can lead to the exploitation of donors - and also the use of unused embryos for stem cell harvesting without the consent from the guardian(s) for the tissue.
• Innovators are having their intellectual property rights waived by this resolution, which is likely to discourage (or at least slow) innovation in this area, which is counterproductive to the aims of this resolution.
• The WHA is required to fund stem cell research, which restricts its use of resources on whatever is the most promising avenue of treatment.
• I have 3 (or probably 4) replacements just about ready to submit - likely within the next week or two:
  
  1. Biomedical Donation Rights - Human Rights, Significant (may be split into 2 replacements - Biomedical Donor Rights & Biomedical Recipient Rights, with tentative drafts on both found here)
  2. Biomedical Innovation Organization - Education & Creativity, Education
  3. Biomedical Trade & Treatment - Free Trade, Mild

Drafting is still open on all those replacements, so if you have specific concerns or critiques, please do head over to those individual threads to comment.

[Christian Democrats]

AGAINST because the original resolution ensures that nations can ban the unethical practice of embryonic stem cell research.

[Ossitania]

FOR because I don't believe in the global conspiracy to mandate the legalisation of embryonic stem cell research.

[Linux and the X]

AGAINST because the original resolution ensures that nations can ban the unethical practice of embryonic stem cell research.

Can we vote for it twice, then? Oh wait, we did. And then a third time just to be safe.

[Weed]

Muh-ha! I beat you Mouse. XD

[Basoden (Ancient)]

I respectfully disagree with the need for this resolution to be repealed. There are issues to be addressed concerning the consent of an individual to participate as a donor for the stem cells as the action is not covered under the Patient's Rights Act, however this could be strengthened by the proposal of regulations of biomedical donations regardless of whether or not they are part of a medical procedure.

We do not believe that, as written, GAR#49 restricts the intellectual property rights of individuals or corporations outside of SC&ATRO or the WHA. The resolution clearly creates a department within the WHA and outlines it's objectives and the ownership of intellectual property created by said department. We do not believe that its current wording allows that all independently-completed stem cell research will automatically be subject to forced publication and assumption of intellectual property rights, nor do we take issue with the establishment and maintenance of SC&ATRO within the WHA.

We do not find compelling argument to support this repeal. Our vote shall come down Against the resolution at vote as we do not feel the repeal of this legislation to be necessary at this time.

[Afrontum]

AGAINST because the original resolution ensures that nations can ban the unethical practice of embryonic stem cell research.

I've re-read the original resolution but I am unable to determine how this conclusion follows from it. Can anyone explain this for the less experienced?

[Sciongrad]

AGAINST because the original resolution ensures that nations can ban the unethical practice of embryonic stem cell research.

I've re-read the original resolution but I am unable to determine how this conclusion follows from it. Can anyone explain this for the less experienced?

His Excellency of Christian Democrats seems to think that repealing SCfGH will inevitably lead to mandatory embryonic stem cell research. I have absolutely no idea how he reached that conclusion, but that's basically his rationale, in a nutshell...

[Ossitania]

I've re-read the original resolution but I am unable to determine how this conclusion follows from it. Can anyone explain this for the less experienced?

His Excellency of Christian Democrats seems to think that repealing SCfGH will inevitably lead to mandatory embryonic stem cell research. I have absolutely no idea how he reached that conclusion, but that's basically his rationale, in a nutshell...

As I understand it, the gentleman from Christian Democrats believes that there is an agenda in the General Assembly to bring about universal legalisation of embryonic stem cell research and that such an agenda would succeed in getting a legalising proposal passed without Stem Cells for Greater Health in place. I'm not quite sure which of these two beliefs is the more absurd but, sufficed to say, he has not been able to provide evidence for them, despite calls for the production of such evidence by my delegation and (probably) others.

[Eireann Fae]

AGAINST because the original resolution ensures that nations can ban the unethical practice of embryonic stem cell research.

"I'm curious as to why you could not ban stem cell research within your own nation if this resolution were to be repealed. Is there something I've missed in Ambassador Eberhart's proposed resolutions that would force your scientists to conduct such research?" Rowan skims through the proposals on her Codex while waiting for a response.