NationStates

The World Assembly,

Recognising the need for a formal resolution on the procedures to protect the mentally disabled,
Understanding that there are multiple levels of of Mental Disability
Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:

1. The ability to understand their rights
2. Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation
3. Their ability to exercise their rights
4. Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

Hereby Mandates that in necessary cases, including but not limited to; legal matters, court matters, and medical consent, a limited power of attorney be transferred to a Responsible Adult.
Defines a Responsible Adult as one of the following

1. A preferred Responsible Adult, nominated by the person before they become disabled, will be the first person requested to become the Responsible Adult, but only if they can prove that they have no conflict of interest
2. A member of the Disabled Person's family, who can legally establish that they have no conflict of interests
3. In lieu of a suitable candidate, a representative, independent of the national government, must be selected, who must also pass a test of conflict of interest.

Mandates that the said Responsible Adult be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that no conflict of interest develops
Restricts the power of Attorney given to the Responsible Adult to the least possible in the circumstances
Urges the states to use this legislation as a matter of last resort, and to consider all alternatives before transferring a persons authority to another.
Urges the states using this legislation to work towards a position whereby a Disabled Person's authority is returned to them at the earliest possible juncture
Mandates the creation of a commission to monitor states for abuse of this legislation


Category Human Rights
Strength medium



As a second attempt at a first WA proposal, I think this is slightly better. Less controversial at least




I would appreciate as much help with this as possible

Looks like there is possible duplication with Resolution 29 Patient Rights Act, specifically this section:

For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

However, I grant that this section notes it is for the purposes of that legislationonly, and is also only concerning a fraction of your draft so I doubt it will be deemed illegal for that on it's own.

Category/Strength?

I like it I really do, and it is nice piece of legislation. the only issue that I have with it, is that this really isn't and International Issue per say, as it is more of a National Issue.

That being said I would probably still support this.

Hirota wrote:Looks like there is possible duplication with Resolution 29 Patient Rights Act, specifically this section:

For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

However, I grant that this section notes it is for the purposes of that legislationonly, and is also only concerning a fraction of your draft so I doubt it will be deemed illegal for that on it's own.

If I'm perfectly honest, that particular clause was this proposals inspiration- I noticed there was no central resolution to govern how the disabled's rights were safeguarded.

United Federation of Canada wrote:Category/Strength?

I like it I really do, and it is nice piece of legislation. the only issue that I have with it, is that this really isn't and International Issue per say, as it is more of a National Issue.

That being said I would probably still support this.

Being fairly new, I'd appreciate help with that aspect, I was thinking maybe human rights and medium? Open to debate though.
I thought that it was an international issue, as one resolution mentions that nations can't discriminate based on race, disability etc, and this would complement it

Imperium Londinium wrote:

Hirota wrote:Looks like there is possible duplication with Resolution 29 Patient Rights Act, specifically this section:
However, I grant that this section notes it is for the purposes of that legislationonly, and is also only concerning a fraction of your draft so I doubt it will be deemed illegal for that on it's own.

If I'm perfectly honest, that particular clause was this proposals inspiration- I noticed there was no central resolution to govern how the disabled's rights were safeguarded.

It is commendable that you've been wading through the existing legislation.

I can't see anything wrong with this resolution otherwise, and prepared to vote FOR were this to come to vote.

Re: Cat/Strength - I'd say Human Rights and Significant would be appropiate. Did wonder if social justice might work, but HR is safer.

Thanks Hirota! I'm glad I've got the hang of this, my first (extremely controversial) attempt yesterday was met with widespread contempt and bad language haha

Imperium Londinium wrote:

United Federation of Canada wrote:Category/Strength?

I like it I really do, and it is nice piece of legislation. the only issue that I have with it, is that this really isn't and International Issue per say, as it is more of a National Issue.

That being said I would probably still support this.

Being fairly new, I'd appreciate help with that aspect, I was thinking maybe human rights and medium? Open to debate though.
I thought that it was an international issue, as one resolution mentions that nations can't discriminate based on race, disability etc, and this would complement it

Yes, well I have my own personal issues with a lot of resolutions that have been passed earlier. THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT AND STAND BY IT. I will support based on what has sort of become Common-Law here in the World Association of passing what are essentially Federal Laws and not really International in nature.

I would say Human Rights/Mild

You Very NatSov Canada?

Yeah, I like it, but I also think that the Patient Rights Act covers all of this.

I agree, the mentally handicaped have just as much rights as other people do and they are equals. Just so long as their not violent and dangerous their fine. This also applies to the non handicapped people.

I think there is a need for this legislation. The international community needs a standard on the mentally handicapped. Would support.

Imperium Londinium wrote:You Very NatSov Canada?

What does that have to do with anything?

Grays Harbor wrote:

Imperium Londinium wrote:You Very NatSov Canada?

What does that have to do with anything?

He was talking about the fact that he is anti-federalist laws, rather than internationalist law, I was making a passive statement, not an accusation

Imperium Londinium wrote:Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are true:

1. The ability to understand their rights
2. Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation
3. Their ability to exercise their rights
4. Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

Underlined emphasis mine. Your wording here is all messed up. I think what you wanted to say was "whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are impeded". Or words to that effect; "hindered" perhaps.

Other than that I don't see anything particularly offensive here. Tentative support. Though I'd suggest a better title. And category/strength is absolutely required.

Yours, etc,
Lord Swift

Imperium Londinium wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:What does that have to do with anything?

He was talking about the fact that he is anti-federalist laws, rather than internationalist law, I was making a passive statement, not an accusation

I never made a statement that I am anti-federalist. I am pro-federalist. That is why i have issues with a lot of resolutions in the WA, as a lot of them infringe on National Sovereignty. That being said I still support.

Dagguerro wrote:

Imperium Londinium wrote:Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are true:

1. The ability to understand their rights
2. Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation
3. Their ability to exercise their rights
4. Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

Underlined emphasis mine. Your wording here is all messed up. I think what you wanted to say was "whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are impeded". Or words to that effect; "hindered" perhaps.

Other than that I don't see anything particularly offensive here. Tentative support. Though I'd suggest a better title. And category/strength is absolutely required.

Yours, etc,
Lord Swift

Note and amended

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz speaks up:
Yes, yes! A thousand times yes! This is quite an important piece of legislation. We are in full support of the underlying sentiment.

We do wish for one improvement: A person may name somebody to become the Responsible Adult in case he becomes mentally handicapped. Would that be possible?

Louisistan wrote:Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz speaks up:
Yes, yes! A thousand times yes! This is quite an important piece of legislation. We are in full support of the underlying sentiment.

We do wish for one improvement: A person may name somebody to become the Responsible Adult in case he becomes mentally handicapped. Would that be possible?

I considered this for the original draft, however I realised that such a system could be open to abuse, if the nominated person had a conflict of interest.
Perhaps a slightly different clause would do 'a person may nominate an individualto be rtheir responsible adult, and they may take up the duty if they pass a standardised conflict of interest test'

Louisistan wrote:Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz speaks up:
Yes, yes! A thousand times yes! This is quite an important piece of legislation. We are in full support of the underlying sentiment.

We do wish for one improvement: A person may name somebody to become the Responsible Adult in case he becomes mentally handicapped. Would that be possible?

I have added a clause in red for your perusal

Does anybody have any alterations they think this needs? Or is it ready to be submitted?

Remember, "resolution writing is a marathon, not a sprint".

I'd give it a few more days at least before submitting.

Moronist Decisions wrote:Remember, "resolution writing is a marathon, not a sprint".

I'd give it a few more days at least before submitting.

More like a week in my opinion. Its been like...one day.

I wasn't planning on it just yet anyway, there's four proposals looking for quorum and I don't want to compete that much, I'm more interested in the amendment side of things, how is it as it stands?

Would appreciate anybodys opinions