[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"

[Mondragonia]

No-one should be immune from the consequences of their actions, good or ill.
Whilst the flaws in the subject resolution are apparent, I would rather it was amended. This resolution will worsen the situation, I think.

[Leutria]

No-one should be immune from the consequences of their actions, good or ill.
Whilst the flaws in the subject resolution are apparent, I would rather it was amended. This resolution will worsen the situation, I think.

Amending resolutions is impossible.

[Ius]

It is complete rubbish and a crime against science.

Should a patient be permitted to consent to an ice pick lobotomy?

Did you even read the Act you are trying to repeal? Or did you read the argument I have provided against this repeal?
Patients will not have to go through any experimntation if they do not wish.
I have entered an Against vote and I hope many others will as well

I urge the an against vote of this proposal. It is complete rubbish and a crime against science. Ius, as a Catholic nation cannot support this for we wish to look after God's creations. This repeal can and will release diseases throughout all species; disregarding organic, non-organic, or the combination of the two. Vote against the very foolish 'repeal'.

[Leutria]

The question wasn't if you think it alright for them to be experimented against their will, the question was if anyone should be allowed to consent to an icepick lobotomy.

[Ius]

The question wasn't if you think it alright for them to be experimented against their will, the question was if anyone should be allowed to consent to an icepick lobotomy.

They can consent if he/she wish with advice and proper guidance.

[Leutria]

You know, I am now even more against GAR #171 then I was before. It has occurred to me that a laboratory could be preforming horrendous experiments and the government powerless to stop it. After all, who is easy enough to get consent from then the poor and homeless? Offer them enough money and many would go through with the experiment no mater what risks they were told there were.

Edit: I am temporarily retracting this statement pending another review of GAR #171. The IRB may be sufficient to control this, though I am not sure.

[Christian Democrats]

You know, I am now even more against GAR #171 then I was before. It has occurred to me that a laboratory could be preforming horrendous experiments and the government powerless to stop it. After all, who is easy enough to get consent from then the poor and homeless? Offer them enough money and many would go through with the experiment no mater what risks they were told there were.

Edit: I am temporarily retracting this statement pending another review of GAR #171. The IRB may be sufficient to control this, though I am not sure.

The Institutional Review Board has oversight only over enterprises, "such as pharmaceutical companies and universities." If Dr. Jekyll or Dr. Frankenstein wants to perform experiments on patients independently of an enterprise, he is unrestricted in his experiments, provided that he obtains informed consent. As you say, some poor and desperate people might consent to anything if they are paid.

[Ius]

You know, I am now even more against GAR #171 then I was before. It has occurred to me that a laboratory could be preforming horrendous experiments and the government powerless to stop it. After all, who is easy enough to get consent from then the poor and homeless? Offer them enough money and many would go through with the experiment no mater what risks they were told there were.

Edit: I am temporarily retracting this statement pending another review of GAR #171. The IRB may be sufficient to control this, though I am not sure.

The Institutional Review Board has oversight only over enterprises, "such as pharmaceutical companies and universities." If Dr. Jekyll or Dr. Frankenstein wants to perform experiments on patients independently of an enterprise, he is unrestricted in his experiments, provided that he obtains informed consent. As you say, some poor and desperate people might consent to anything if they are paid.

I'm so happy you said Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Frankenstein. Do you know what they all in common these 'quacks' I know your were going to list for me. The title of Doctor comes before their names. And in order to be a doctor one must pass the board exam and a hearing in front of a board. If the poor are looking from some quick cash for experimentation, they are fully aware of the consequences that MIGHT happen to them.


* Dr. Jekyll was a good doctor is alter ego Mr. Hyde is evil.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

However, this so happens to still violate international Nuremberg codes, which our country abides by.

In our country, we do believe that our citizens must be protected from unethical practice, and GAR 171 is definitely protecting unethical practices. And like I said, the Review Board can be bribed to actually license an unethical procedure as ethically correct and approved, which is dangerous.

[Araraukar]

However, this so happens to still violate international Nuremberg codes, which our country abides by.

What's this Nuremberg code everyone keeps hawking about? We can't find any such mentions in our history books, nor a Nuremberg in our world atlas.

[Kells]

Nuremberg, guess they have some pretty important codes of human rights.

[Preconstitutional Utopia]

Esteemed colleagues,

as you know, the Federal Republic of Preconstitutional Utopia is no friend of deregulation and we think GA#171 was a splendid resolution which greatly promoted fair and ethical medical research.

And yet, we have to agree with the author of the proposal at hand, that it creates a "law-free space" in so far, as malpractice or questionable research with consenting patients can not effectivley be punished. We have seen cases of doctors, who had fully informed patients on the intended medical procedue,s but during the operation, due to overwork or fatal eagerness, made gross mistakes, resulting in injuries which could, in the normal cause of things, be easily avoided.

We also have seen cases of medical research which subjected patients to great risks, while other, risk free established methods to treat the patient's illness already existed.

Under the current legislation, neither the injured individuals nor our nations can effectively prosecute such actions and detestable practices.

Hence, we must, with heavy heart, vote FOR the repeal and urge you to do the same.

[Ranseur]

I do throw my vote in favor of this change in legislation, but it makes me wonder what types of reform this will bring in the future. I hope that we do not need to redefine controversial medicine again.

[Ius]

If this repeal passes, which it most likely will. The delegate of the Nation of Ius can and will propose a similar act with the controversial sections stricken out.
And amended as I believe that this repeals wants. The Freedom in Medical Research Act, is far to important to be thrown away.

[Grand Aqualair Empire]

The Grand Aqualair Empire will not support this resolution of Repeal for the fact that the original resolution only needs to be amended. Strike out the area in question and leave the rest of the bill and you will have our vote.

[Leutria]

If this repeal passes, which it most likely will. The delegate of the Nation of Ius can and will propose a similar act with the controversial sections stricken out.
And amended as I believe that this repeals wants. The Freedom in Medical Research Act, is far to important to be thrown away.

I would likely support such an effort. Of course my support would depend on the exact wording of such a proposal.

[Araraukar]

And amended as I believe that this repeals wants. The Freedom in Medical Research Act, is far to important to be thrown away.

You honestly think the author of this repeal wants anything in the target resolution's place? If so, they'd have listened even halfway to the pointers of "what you say is not what the target resolution actually does" and "you got that one just point blank wrong". But good luck for a replacement.

[Christian Democrats]

The Grand Aqualair Empire will not support this resolution of Repeal for the fact that the original resolution only needs to be amended.

The Rules of the General Assembly do not allow for previously enacted resolutions to be amended.

[Northern Inertia]

Just the word "sapient-kind" in the original resolution is enough to cause us to vote for the repeal.

On a more serious note, we do believe that tort law overall is not something the WA should regulate because of the many, extremely diverse court systems there are within the organisation.

[Commonwealth Of Woodbury]

If a doctor is negligent he or she should be punished not rewarded by being granted amnesty. Its not fair to the patient.

[Araraukar]

If a doctor is negligent he or she should be punished not rewarded by being granted amnesty. Its not fair to the patient.

Negligient, yes. But not if they do everything right and something bad still happens. Read the original resolution, please.

[The Akashic Records]

If a doctor is negligent he or she should be punished not rewarded by being granted amnesty. Its not fair to the patient.

Negligient, yes. But not if they do everything right and something bad still happens. Read the original resolution, please.

Which, was exactly my point, in which they kept on bringing up cases of negligence. And then, quacks, or con artists lying through their teeth, and being protected by the target of the repeal. Frankly speaking, while it is highly unlikely, the possibility was enough for the author to write a repeal, and as it would seem, most of the WA members. I don't think doctors or medical professionals will see the merit of providing any form of controversial medical treatments, seeing that the very patients who they've helped to live longer would then come after them if they experienced side effects that have already been informed to be a possibility, but unwanted.

I'm aware of the last clause of the repeal, but the point was to stop the banning of unproven medical treatments, and shielding those who would probably be unjustly persecuted.

[Ummagumma]

While the government of Ummagumma instructed our representative to the General Assembly to vote against the original resolution, it was not for the reasons that this repeal states. Our government is against the statements made by this repeal.

The reason why we voted against the original resolution is that it chose the free trade category and our government adamantly stands against the WA's attempts at monetizing our medical services in any way. We like the original resolution, but not the sneaky attempt to monetize our medicine.

We cannot support this repeal, because it fails to address any of the problems we had with the original resolution and if we supported it would instead force us to condemn it for reasons we don't support.

[Paladinia (Ancient)]

This repeal is total sh*t, doctors should be allowed to do what they think is right for the patient and if the patient consents to it, then they should be aware of the risks the patient doesn't have a right to sue, as they most likely didn't look through the intricacies of the operation, and as for prescriptions if the patient is unsure about the risks then they should phone their doctor about side-effects not look on the pill bottle, it's just common sense. Doctors need to be given the freedom to practice operations and use medical techniques that they think will help the patient, it's how medical science advances. This is just like in irl when a customer at Mcdonalds sued because they burnt their mouth drinking hot coffee, it's simple. This repeal is just shifting blame onto the doctors and not the individual. This repeal really shows how this forum has shifted into a liberal sh*thole, now I have nothing against liberals, as I myself am one, but this forum has gone too far.

[Frisbeeteria]

[threadjack]

This is just like in irl when a customer at Mcdonalds sued because they burnt their mouth drinking hot coffee,

For what it's worth, if you want to look informed, you really ought to actually BE informed. Try reading the actual facts about Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants before using it as an example to make your case.

... and now back to our bitchfest, already in progress.

[/threadjack]