[Passed] Rights of the Quarantined

[Umeria]

This is a replacement of Quarantine Regulation.

Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

The World Assembly,

Understanding that there are many communicable diseases which spread easily if they are not treated hastily;

Noting that there are times when some communicable diseases cannot be treated hastily;

Realizing that such diseases should instead be promptly contained to prevent an international epidemic;

Recognizing that in order to efficiently contain a disease, drastic measures are sometimes necessary;

Further understanding that in those cases, individual rights are often subverted in order to efficiently contain the disease;

Further noting that there are nations that take this subversion too far, and oppress their citizens in the name of disease control;

Wishing to ensure that every victim of an epidemic, even those in nations otherwise unable to promptly contain an outbreak, is safely quarantined without any unnecessary impingement of basic rights;

Hereby

1) Tasks the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define as a "serious disease" any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease;

2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, when there are enough people with the same serious disease(as defined by the EPARC) to be clearly in excess of the normal expectancy;
2. an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease;
3. a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt the spread of the disease;
4. a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
   
   1. curing the infected person;
   2. rendering the infected person non-contagious;
   3. ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
   4. ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;

3) Recommends that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic in their nation, screen for any infected persons in that nation not yet known to be infected;

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:

1. create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
2. move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
3. provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
4. move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
5. disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends; and

5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines;

6) Establishes a medical ethics board within the EPARC, tasking it to:

1. review matters of necessity and promulgation within quarantines;
2. ensure that such matters are handled with proper consideration of the infected person's well-being;
3. ensure that infected individuals are treated fairly with regards to individual freedom and dignity; and

7) Urges that member nations provide infected persons with comfort and security, to help them recover from their unfortunate situation.

[Wallenburg]

"This is certainly a good start, Ambassador, although I see several problems."

1) Declares that every person under quarantine has a right to:

1. access to clean water;
2. a mode of communication with the person's family members; and
3. a sanitary living space;

"These requirements make absolutely no sense. First, access to clean water is not necessary for all species. I would suggest that you require "essential nourishment or sustenance" instead. Second, communication with family members may compromise the quarantine itself. Sure, modern nations may have adequate telecommunication systems to provide for this, but others would only be able to offer face-to-face communication, which would quite obviously risk further pathogenic communication beyond the quarantine area. Third, a sanitary living space is, essentially, impossible in a quarantine area. As long as there are communicable individuals in quarantine, the quarantine will not be sanitary."

2) Forbids member nations from killing those under quarantine without their consent;

"Even if the quarantined riot and attempt to free themselves violently?"

[Bears Armed]

"Second, communication with family members may compromise the quarantine itself. Sure, modern nations may have adequate telecommunication systems to provide for this, but others would only be able to offer face-to-face communication, which would quite obviously risk further pathogenic communication beyond the quarantine area."

"And then there's the possibility that some of the quarantined people might be foreign visitors, and international communication might , for one reason or another, be rather harder to arrange than 'domestic' communication."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Calladan]

2) Forbids member nations from killing those under quarantine without their consent;

If you are going to allow euthanasia (which is essentially what this permits) then I would suggest you need to add "or the consent of someone responsisble for them" -- it would take care of those who can't give their own consent (those in comas who are suffering, terminal cases and those who are under the age of majority in the nation in question)

[Umeria]

First, access to clean water is not necessary for all species. I would suggest that you require "essential nourishment or sustenance" instead.

Done.

Second, communication with family members may compromise the quarantine itself. Sure, modern nations may have adequate telecommunication systems to provide for this, but others would only be able to offer face-to-face communication, which would quite obviously risk further pathogenic communication beyond the quarantine area.

So, there are nations that are low-tech enough to not know how to, say, write a letter? If the nation hasn't invented writing, they won't be able to read this proposal in the first place.

Third, a sanitary living space is, essentially, impossible in a quarantine area. As long as there are communicable individuals in quarantine, the quarantine will not be sanitary."

I meant sanitary as in not filled with the infected person's own feces. I'll change it to "clean".

"These requirements make absolutely no sense.

Just because they're worded incorrectly doesn't mean they make no sense.

"Even if the quarantined riot and attempt to free themselves violently?"

They could always club them unconscious and drag them back to their hospital beds. They just can't kill them.

"And then there's the possibility that some of the quarantined people might be foreign visitors, and international communication might , for one reason or another, be rather harder to arrange than 'domestic' communication."

What reason exactly? If the person came from a foreign country then presumably the countries are not at war with each other. Unless the visitor is there illegally, in which case I doubt they'd mention who their relatives were.

If you are going to allow euthanasia (which is essentially what this permits) then I would suggest you need to add "or the consent of someone responsisble for them" -- it would take care of those who can't give their own consent

You mean if the infected person has gone insane? In those cases, their old self has already died...

(those in comas who are suffering

Could one really undergo that much pain while in a coma?

terminal cases

But if they can't even communicate to the infected person, then that person probably doesn't have much time left anyway.

and those who are under the age of majority in the nation in question)

Hang on. Why can't the kid decide for themself whether they want to die?

[Wallenburg]

So, there are nations that are low-tech enough to not know how to, say, write a letter? If the nation hasn't invented writing, they won't be able to read this proposal in the first place.

"Heh-heh. I think I might need some caffeine. Sorry about that, Ambassador."

I meant sanitary as in not filled with the infected person's own feces. I'll change it to "clean".

"Ah, I see. Well, given such a change, there should be no issue."

Just because they're worded incorrectly doesn't mean they make no sense.

"Actually, that's exactly what it means."

They could always club them unconscious and drag them back to their hospital beds. They just can't kill them.

"People ought to have the right to act in self-defense, Ambassador. Sometimes lethal force is necessary. I'm not sure how you can expect member nations to train all their quarantine officials in non-lethal blunt force combat."

---

Hang on. Why can't the kid decide for themself whether they want to die?

"Age of consent laws in most member states will most certainly say that minors cannot offer legal consent to such a procedure."

[Bananaistan]

"Is the killing clause really necessary?

"Regarding the painkiller clause, shouldn't such decisions be left in the hands of suitably qualified medical practitioners? I'm not sure that international law is the best place to be mandating that people with headaches are given an aspirin. Perhaps the 3rd & 4th clauses could be merged into one clause mandating that any suffering be minimised including through the provision of painkillers when deemed medically appropriate by a qualified medical practitioners.

"Actually perhaps that's an another small gap in the GAR#385. There's plenty on the "quarantinees" getting treatment for the serious disease but perhaps there should be something about doctors being on hand to oversee such treatment and any other medical issues which may arise and having the committee cover the cost if the member state can't. I'm sure most of us would see arranging for doctors to be on hand in such situations as a justifiable use of WA funds."

- Ted Hornwood.

[Tinfect]

2) Forbids member nations from killing those under quarantine without their consent;

"Ambassador, in the event of an attempted escape, such measures may be necessary to ensure that containment is not breached; especially when those involved cannot be safely apprehended."

They could always club them unconscious and drag them back to their hospital beds. They just can't kill them.

"Assuming, of course, that the affliction in question does not preclude such a thing. Biological Weapons in particular, Ambassador, are not always so easily defeated by medications."

You mean if the infected person has gone insane? In those cases, their old self has already died...

"That is not a counter-argument, Ambassador. And in any case, such a position is... naive, and does not express understanding of such conditions."

But if they can't even communicate to the infected person, then that person probably doesn't have much time left anyway.

"And is a slow, painful, and quite likely undignified death acceptable in that circumstance, Ambassador? Even in those states largely opposed to such things, many see the sense in allowing one to die on their own terms in the event of terminal illness."

[Jarish Inyo]

So, there are nations that are low-tech enough to not know how to, say, write a letter? If the nation hasn't invented writing, they won't be able to read this proposal in the first place.

So, you allow a breach of quarantine so the infected can send a letter to their family?

[Umeria]

Added exceptions to clause 2.

"That is not a counter-argument, Ambassador.

I know. I was not disagreeing, I was trying to think of examples.

I'm not sure that international law is the best place to be mandating that people with headaches are given an aspirin.

Most headaches are not severe pain.

So, there are nations that are low-tech enough to not know how to, say, write a letter? If the nation hasn't invented writing, they won't be able to read this proposal in the first place.

So, you allow a breach of quarantine so the infected can send a letter to their family?

No, the person delivering the letter would have to take health precautions.

[Wallenburg]

So, there are nations that are low-tech enough to not know how to, say, write a letter? If the nation hasn't invented writing, they won't be able to read this proposal in the first place.

So, you allow a breach of quarantine so the infected can send a letter to their family?

"Ambassador Nameless, a non-infected individual can certainly either write the message for them, or produce a copy of the letter, in order to avoid contamination."

[States of Glory WA Office]

So, there are nations that are low-tech enough to not know how to, say, write a letter? If the nation hasn't invented writing, they won't be able to read this proposal in the first place.

Fairburn: Ah, but what about those nations which, for whatever reason, lack the necessary utensils needed for letter-writing? I suggest this addition:

5) CREATES the World Health Authority Letter Establishment (WHALE),

6) TASKS the WHALE with providing an adequate supply of pens, paper and ink, for the purposes of written communication, to those nations that may lack such items.

Neville: That suggestion is both ridiculous and hilarious. If I were the one drafting this, I'd add it in just to see the reactions of the lemmings.

Fairburn: Just a nitpick, but why does Clause Four only urge nations to provide comfort and security? Shouldn't that be a requirement?

[Umeria]

Fairburn: Ah, but what about those nations which, for whatever reason, lack the necessary utensils needed for letter-writing?

Then they can use a piece of clay and a stick. Those things can be found in every nation.

Neville: That suggestion is both ridiculous and hilarious. If I were the one drafting this, I'd add it in just to see the reactions of the lemmings.

If I did there would surely be a messy instarepeal on a costs argument.

Fairburn: Just a nitpick, but why does Clause Four only urge nations to provide comfort and security? Shouldn't that be a requirement?

Because then someone would say "comfort" is too vague, and I'd have to rewrite the clause half a dozen times, and it would eventually revert back to an urges clause anyway(just like what happened with clause 3 of GAR#385). I don't want to go through that again.

[Jarish Inyo]

No, the person delivering the letter would have to take health precautions.

Diseases and viruses can also travel and effect people on things moving through the mail service.

"Ambassador Nameless, a non-infected individual can certainly either write the message for them, or produce a copy of the letter, in order to avoid contamination."

How is having someone else writing the letter within the quarantine zone going to guaranty the letter is not going to carry and spreading the disease or virus through the mail? How is one going to produce a copy of the letter without coming into contact with the original that may be carrying the disease or virus. This assuming that the nation has yet to become advance enough to move beyond mail service.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Bell pointed out that my previous resolution, Quarantine Regulation, lacked a description of medical ethics. So, I decided to fill that gap with this proposal.

"This proposal either fundamentally misunderstands medical ethics, or seeks to approach the topic with as much extra fluff as necessary. I maintain that the best way to deal with this issue would have been the inclusion if a single line in the original, and that a repeal should be mounted to rectify the gross oversight. This approach is a bad facsimile of slapping a bandaid on a gaping wound and calling it fixed."

[Wallenburg]

"This proposal either fundamentally misunderstands medical ethics, or seeks to approach the topic with as much extra fluff as necessary. I maintain that the best way to deal with this issue would have been the inclusion if a single line in the original, and that a repeal should be mounted to rectify the gross oversight. This approach is a bad facsimile of slapping a bandaid on a gaping wound and calling it fixed."

"To an extent, I agree with Ambassador Bell. While I believe that this proposal is quite good enough for the World Assembly, I maintain that 'Quarantine Regulation' must be repealed swiftly."

[Umeria]

So, you want to repeal GAR#385 just because it leaves something out. All it takes is this one resolution to fill the gap. Why should we make two resolutions in a repeal-and-replace effort?

This approach is a bad facsimile of slapping a bandaid on a gaping wound and calling it fixed."

What exactly does this proposal not cover? Yes, it doesn't make an ethics board, but it does everything an ethics board would do. If there's anything relevant my proposal doesn't include, I'd be happy to add it.

[Separatist Peoples]

So, you want to repeal GAR#385 just because it leaves something out.

"Yes."

All it takes is this one resolution to fill the gap. Why should we make two resolutions in a repeal-and-replace effort?

"Because we believe in quality, ambassador. If a law fails to accomplish the scope if it's goal, we shouldn't shore it up with half-assed buttresses, we should tear it down, holding the author accountable for their failure, and replace it with something of sufficient quality."

What exactly does this proposal not cover? Yes, it doesn't make an ethics board, but it does everything an ethics board would do. If there's anything relevant my proposal doesn't include, I'd be happy to add it.

"The appropriateness of applying experimental medication in an emergent situation. The appropriateness of dangerous treatments in an emergent situation. The authority to make medical decisions for individuals found non compos menti when their legal guardians' wishes are to the contrary of the safe promulgation of the quarantine. The appropriateness of removing an individual from their geographic homes to a quarantined area in a vastly different area, regardless of acceptable alternatives. Assessing the protocols for quarantining a non-infected individual. The appropriateness of administering a treatment that causes permanent damage to the individual at the cost of stopping the spread of disease, including being physically or mentally crippled, disfigured, or even killed. What constitutes appropriate force or overreaching and unnecessary precautions in maintaining a quarantine. I could go on.

"Your proposal, ambassador, shows only the most rudimentary understanding of the place of medical ethics in a quarantine. I recognize that you are not a medical doctor or ethics, but I would have expected you to have done any research on the topic. What you've done is handed a child a loaded gun for self-protection without bothering to consider whether the force you've granted is appropriate or necessary, or even bothering to counsel the child in what use of said firearm is reasonable. Every single example I've shown would have to be assessed based on the totality of the situation, and every situation would be different. You cannot create an appropriate statutory mechanism to address these permutations. Furthermore, it the correct place for this would not be in a stand-alone resolution, which has to fight through a lack of context and a temporal separation (and therefore a cognitive separation for voters) from the original resolution that it relies on so heavily. In fact, one might argue that, should the original be repealed, this would have to be repealed to re-address the issue effectively.

"Your oversight has caused a small army of problems, ambassador. The correct way to address them is to start over."

[Umeria]

[snip]

Lockwood slowly takes out a crumpled copy of Quarantine Regulation. There are dozens of carefully written edits marked in red pen, dozens of changes, each one thorough and precise. It took so long to get that proposal passed. All that time, all that hard work, for nothing. A single tear slides down his cheek.

"I suppose," he says, quiet enough to be a whisper, "that this new proposal has become a replacement of the old one."

[Separatist Peoples]

[snip]

Lockwood slowly takes out a crumpled copy of Quarantine Regulation. There are dozens of carefully written edits marked in red pen, dozens of changes, each one thorough and precise. It took so long to get that proposal passed. All that time, all that hard work, for nothing. A single tear slides down his cheek.

"I suppose," he says, quiet enough to be a whisper, "that this new proposal has become a replacement of the old one."

Bell rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, you can replace the resolution with a carbon copy of the original and one extra line, a rough draft of which I provided in the original drafting minutes. Let us not be over dramatic, please."

[Umeria]

Lockwood slowly takes out a crumpled copy of Quarantine Regulation. There are dozens of carefully written edits marked in red pen, dozens of changes, each one thorough and precise. It took so long to get that proposal passed. All that time, all that hard work, for nothing. A single tear slides down his cheek.

"I suppose," he says, quiet enough to be a whisper, "that this new proposal has become a replacement of the old one."

Bell rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, you can replace the resolution with a carbon copy of the original and one extra line, a rough draft of which I provided in the original drafting minutes. Let us not be over dramatic, please."

Wait. I can do that?

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, you can replace the resolution with a carbon copy of the original and one extra line, a rough draft of which I provided in the original drafting minutes. Let us not be over dramatic, please."

Wait. I can do that?

"Its your intellectual property, ambassador. You aren't plagiarizing by reusing it, and I have given you permission to utilize my wording, though I would prefer it if you didn't copy and paste it, of course."

[Umeria]

Wait. I can do that?

"Its your intellectual property, ambassador. You aren't plagiarizing by reusing it, and I have given you permission to utilize my wording, though I would prefer it if you didn't copy and paste it, of course."

Okay, I elaborated on your wording, though the "necessity and promulgation" part is the same.

[Separatist Peoples]

review items of necessity and promulgation within quarantines;

"Ambassador, what is an item of promulgation?"

ensure that such items are delivered to infected persons when appropriate;
ensure that infected individuals are treated with regards to individual freedom and dignity; and

"Treated how with regards to their freedom and dignity?"


Bell massages his temples, frustrated. "It seems that, even though you did not copy and paste my words, you used them without fully understanding the meaning behind them. The inclusion of a medical ethics board is not to add a subdivided list of bullets to address the base concerns of those quarantined, ambassador, it is to task a group of professionals with a higher power."

He holds up a list of the examples he had previously raised. "The ethical concerns might be those of food and water access, but could as much be the sensitive issues surrounding forced relocation or measuring quality of life against available resources. Your current wording, what little of it makes sense, relegates the board to logistics, not ethics, except in your third, incomplete point, which has a partial directive to consider freedom and dignity, but is followed with no empowerment to that end.

"An ethical board needs to have the power to approve, monitor, review, and correct measures taken in large quarantine efforts. It needs to be specifically empowered not to oversee the distribution of clean water and bedpans, but to weigh measures of necessity against the rights and welfare of the afflicted. It needs to focus on ethics, dammit, and not logistics. These are people, their needs go beyond rations and supplies!"

Bell looks to his staff to use their enthusiastic nods to demonstrate support for his position, but remembers that he doesn't have a staff. "You have to see the issue here, ambassador, or you need to hand the baton to somebody who does. This is a rare issue where high morals and extreme exigent necessity cross. We need to make the decision with compassion and rigor now, or the decision will be made by a cold-hearted bean-counter later, and it sure won't be the bean-counter who suffers for it."

[Umeria]

"Treated how with regards to their freedom and dignity?"

Fairly. Added the adverb.

Bell massages his temples, frustrated. "It seems that, even though you did not copy and paste my words, you used them without fully understanding the meaning behind them. The inclusion of a medical ethics board is not to add a subdivided list of bullets to address the base concerns of those quarantined, ambassador, it is to task a group of professionals with a higher power."

He holds up a list of the examples he had previously raised. "The ethical concerns might be those of food and water access, but could as much be the sensitive issues surrounding forced relocation or measuring quality of life against available resources. Your current wording, what little of it makes sense, relegates the board to logistics, not ethics, except in your third, incomplete point, which has a partial directive to consider freedom and dignity, but is followed with no empowerment to that end.

"An ethical board needs to have the power to approve, monitor, review, and correct measures taken in large quarantine efforts. It needs to be specifically empowered not to oversee the distribution of clean water and bedpans, but to weigh measures of necessity against the rights and welfare of the afflicted. It needs to focus on ethics, dammit, and not logistics. These are people, their needs go beyond rations and supplies!"

Bell looks to his staff to use their enthusiastic nods to demonstrate support for his position, but remembers that he doesn't have a staff. "You have to see the issue here, ambassador, or you need to hand the baton to somebody who does. This is a rare issue where high morals and extreme exigent necessity cross. We need to make the decision with compassion and rigor now, or the decision will be made by a cold-hearted bean-counter later, and it sure won't be the bean-counter who suffers for it."

The ethics board has authority. It says they have to ensure the infected persons are treated fairly and given items of necessity. How does that not cover those issues?