NationStates

Repeal 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'

Category: Repeal

The World Assembly,

Commending the principles outlined and adhered to by the target resolution,

Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge' as it omits specific medical cases, which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

Bamboozled by technological research being discounted in the definition of 'medicinal knowledge', as this prevents innumerable medical technologies and biomedical advances from being archived by the WACMD (many of which are integral to having a full understanding of modern medicinal science),

Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined by the resolution, as the active clauses instead use the separate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency allowing member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

Noting that the medical applications of technologies developed during the creation of biological weapons in the world's history would be discarded simply due to their initial place of origin,

Puzzled by the fact that the proposal both allows access to the WACMD database by 'all' - an ambiguous term - and exclusively to WA member nations; a notable contradiction that, depending on interpretation, may allow for dangerous and potentially malicious misuse of the database by non-member nations,

Appalled by the fact that the WACMD database exists solely online, restricting access to member nations that possess digital networks,

Displeased with the waste of World Assembly funds that the target resolution ultimately represents, as other resolutions such as GA #103, GA #78, and GA #31 already perform most - if not all - of the important functions that the target resolution details,

Bemused by the failure of the resolution to specify any form of curation in regards to submitted medical data, leading to potentially misleading information being added to the database,

Believing that the resolution is not fit to legislate in regards to the restriction and regulation of private medical research nor per-nation medical legislation and policy, and that it overstretches its focus by attempting to do so,

Hereby repeals GA #400, 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'.

Araraukar wrote:Just noticed that you define "medicinal information" but use "medical information" in the body of the proposal, which neuters all of its active clauses, as it lets nations interprete "medical information" as whatever the hell they like.

Your only use of "medicinal" is in "medicinal discoveries", but again, not defined, so can be interpreted as whatever the nations feel like.

OOC: To put that in RL examples, nations could inform the WA that they have discovered how to effectively kill bacteriums (penicillin and other antibiotics), how to use invisible rays to detect broken bones (röntgen, also known as x-rays) and how to use magnetic fields to see details inside living bodies (MRI) without going into any details.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! (We try to welcome all GA newbies, no matter their NS experience elsewhere. )

I'd also like to point out the error that I pointed out on the target's thread before it went to vote, but which was apparently ignored by the author:

Araraukar wrote:Just noticed that you define "medicinal information" but use "medical information" in the body of the proposal, which neuters all of its active clauses, as it lets nations interprete "medical information" as whatever the hell they like.

Your only use of "medicinal" is in "medicinal discoveries", but again, not defined, so can be interpreted as whatever the nations feel like.

OOC: To put that in RL examples, nations could inform the WA that they have discovered how to effectively kill bacteriums (penicillin and other antibiotics), how to use invisible rays to detect broken bones (röntgen, also known as x-rays) and how to use magnetic fields to see details inside living bodies (MRI) without going into any details.

Helaw wrote:Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge', as it omits specific medical cases which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

Draconae wrote:

Xerox Prime wrote:Establishes a World Assembly Central Medicinal Database (WACMD), with the purpose of:

• Accepting medical knowledge from those who contribute it,
• Archiving historical and present medicinal discoveries and knowledge in a centralized digital database, accessible by all,
• Providing access of such information to the nations of the WA, and ensuring the preservation of aforementioned medical knowledge,
• Establishing an online database for all collected and archived medical knowledge,
• Providing access to archived knowledge for educational purposes;

"These bullet points seem unnecessarily repetitive. Couldn't you have included 'online' in the second bullet point? Also, wouldn't 'accessable by all' include for educational purposes? However, the other major problem here is that some nations don't have any digital networks, so they won't be able to access this information, as it is entirely digital."

Xerox Prime wrote:Mandates that all WA Nations pass laws to promote healthcare, medicinal and pharmaceutical research, and preservation of medical knowledge;

"This clause is very vague, which will lead nations to interpret it in a number of different ways, from a reduction in regulations for healthcare and medical research to nationalization of healthcare. You may not have wanted some of those outcomes. Furthermore, why should nations have to promote medical research and the preservation of medical knowledge if the WA, under this resolution, is already doing so? This clause does not really make any sense."

Xerox Prime wrote:Affirms the right for private and corporate entities to participate in their own research and production of medicinal and pharmaceutical goods and information, albeit under WA and WACMD regulation, if applicable and approved by the WA.

"Finally, we come to this clause, which (unintentionally, I'm sure) makes the WA responsible for approving any and all research and production of medicinal and pharmaceutical goods. Now, with all the good things that the WA has done, I don't believe they should be responsible for this, as this will either entirely bog down the WA or see a committee control all non-governmental medical research. Furthermore, this doesn't even specify what committee controls this approval process. This is so vague that a plausible interpretation is that the WA might need to pass a resolution to approve any individual research project. In addition, in response to the argument that individual nations would shut down medical research, this database would actually solve that, because all nations would have access, so any nation or corporation could build on the achievements of another. Instead, by imposing this centralized control, the WA could shut down all non-governmental medical research, which would only leave governments, with sometimes limited funding, doing research."

Draconae wrote:

Helaw wrote:Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge', as it omits specific medical cases which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

I'm not sure this is quite right. Couldn't a nation still put anonymized information about this one-case disease into the database? Or, are you arguing that, since it was only present in one case, it by definition pertains to 'specific medical cases'?

Helaw wrote:

Draconae wrote:I'm not sure this is quite right. Couldn't a nation still put anonymized information about this one-case disease into the database? Or, are you arguing that, since it was only present in one case, it by definition pertains to 'specific medical cases'?

OOC: The full line is 'information pertaining to specific medical cases and records,' which has very difficult wording. My interpretation (meaning: It is too broad and ambiguous) is that it refers to any information coming from specific cases, which would isolate incidents that come from a very small number of cases due to the fact that they could be arbitrarily seen as 'specific'. For example, if a very interesting medical occurrence / anomaly was found within a single patient, this clause would ensure that any relevant information could not be included within the database. This interpretation is compounded by the fact that the clause mentions patient records before this.

The Candy Of Bottles wrote:I personally can't help but notice that anatomy is totally absent from the resolution at vote- that's a vital part of medical and particularly surgical knowledge.

Confounded by the inconsistent terminology used throughout, specifically in regards to that of 'medicinal knowledge' versus 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency leading to a high level of individual member nation interpretation of clauses consisting of the latter,

Aclion wrote:Does anyone else find.

Confounded by the inconsistent terminology used throughout, specifically in regards to that of 'medicinal knowledge' versus 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency leading to a high level of individual member nation interpretation of clauses consisting of the latter,

Difficult to understand. I feel like I would have trouble with it, if I did not already know what it was referring too.

Excidium Planetis wrote:"I personally found it quite confusing, until I read Madam Ambassador Leveret's explanation of it in the transcript." Blackbourne agrees.

Aclion wrote:Does anyone else find.

Confounded by the inconsistent terminology used throughout, specifically in regards to that of 'medicinal knowledge' versus 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency leading to a high level of individual member nation interpretation of clauses consisting of the latter,

Difficult to understand. I feel like I would have trouble with it, if I did not already know what it was referring too.

Helaw wrote:Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined while the active clauses instead use the disparate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', thus allowing for member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

Araraukar wrote:

Helaw wrote:Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined while the active clauses instead use the disparate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', thus allowing for member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

OOC: As a non-native English user, I suggest not using "disparate", as I at least had to look it up just now, despite having run into it before. Also, is "allowing for" correct grammatically when it's followed by a sentence?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC: I would have drafted a repeal if you had not already got dibs. To be honest, this is certainly a disappointing resolution 400. You can easily make a cost argument on the fact that this resolution doesn't do anything which three other resolutions already do — the Universal Library Coalition already archives data, International Drug Education already promotes international medical knowledge, and the World Health Authority already promotes international cooperation on health affairs. Doing all those things all over again in a different organisation only wastes the WA funds.

Helaw wrote:It's a shame. Hopefully the 500th resolution will be slightly less fundamentally flawed. Thank you for pointing out those resolutions to me; I've updated the draft to include brief references to them. Is the way I have referenced them correct by GA standards?

Excidium Planetis wrote:

Helaw wrote:It's a shame. Hopefully the 500th resolution will be slightly less fundamentally flawed. Thank you for pointing out those resolutions to me; I've updated the draft to include brief references to them. Is the way I have referenced them correct by GA standards?

"It is correct, but it might be better to be brief, if less informative, and use GA# whatever number it is, instead of listing the titles. It also makes it easier for readers to find the resolutions referenced."

Covenstone wrote:Is this what The World Assembly does? Passes things and then repeals them the next day?

Covenstone wrote:Is this what The World Assembly does? Passes things and then repeals them the next day?