[PASSED] Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[Imperium Anglorum]

that's no joke!

It's an incredible joke. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reading that reminds me of when Hobbes says that answering the question 9 + 4 is tricky and requires 'calculus and imaginary numbers'.

[New Waldensia]

Seeing as we may never get the official legality ruling, I may just go ahead and re-file this...

[Separatist Peoples]

Seeing as we may never get the official legality ruling, I may just go ahead and re-file this...

OOC: You do so at your own risk.

[New Waldensia]

OC: Annnnd we have a ruling.

I believe the current draft corrects the issue that resulted in the illegality ruling.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Can you wait until the weekend before submitting? I have a lot to say on this but wouldn't have the time to give it it's due consideration until Friday evening or Saturday.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: Can you wait until the weekend before submitting? I have a lot to say on this but wouldn't have the time to give it it's due consideration until Friday evening or Saturday.

OOC: sure thing.

[Robosia]

"So wait, will this resolution force us to give tourists free medical care?"

[Imperial Polk County]

"So wait, will this resolution force us to give tourists free medical care?"

"Perhaps you should read clause 5 again."

[New Waldensia]

"So wait, will this resolution force us to give tourists free medical care?"

"Perhaps you should read clause 5 again."

"Ambassador Drane is correct. Sovereign states would still have the ability to set limits on non-residents entering their nation for the express purpose of receiving medical care. If they choose to forgo the economic development benefits this measure can bring, they will be free to do so."

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would suggest combining clauses 2 and 7, but other than that, it looks good to me. I'll be interested to hear Banana's feedback, though.

"So wait, will this resolution force us to give tourists free medical care?"

IC: "You already have to provide them free medical care in life-threatening emergencies, but as the others pointed out, this is about the tourists themselves paying for the medical care."

[Bananaistan]

All comments OOC.

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting [s]their[/s] citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly,

If I read this right, your aim is to prevent any member state from stopping individuals from leaving unless there’s a reason mandated by international law (either already passed or future)? The “so long …” phrase seems very clunky. Perhaps you could cut it down to something like “unless the individual is detained for medical or legal reasons, or any other reason further to international law”.

I also note that the clause refers to “citizens and permanent residents”. Temporary residents are therefore outside the scope of the clause. Is this your intention? Would “individuals” work as well?

I commend the use of the phrase “medically necessary healthcare”. That member nations legal processes would decide what is and isn’t medically necessary and, perhaps, play out in the same fashion as the RL case which inspired this proposal is implicit.

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, including complete refusal to accept non-resident patients,

Fair enough.

3: Requires member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

Fair enough.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

I’d recommend that you use whatever terminology you use in section 1 here rather than just “permanent residents” as well as changing “medical treatments or operations” to “medically necessary healthcare”.

I don’t really see the point of the “as long ….” phrase, and it is rather clunky.

Also, the whole section is a repeal hook as the extent to which member nations may not take such legal action is not qualified. Surely this should only be that member nations cannot take legal action against medical tourists in respect of their having sought or received healthcare abroad? At the moment it reads like a blanket prohibition of any legal action for any reason against medical tourists and I would suggest that you rewrite the section to make it clear that it is a prohibition of legal action only in respect of the medical tourists having sought or received medically necessary healthcare abroad.

5: Declares that patients seeking to travel to a foreign nation for the purpose of obtaining medical care or treatment are financially responsible for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.‎

I don’t like this requirement that such travel and treatment must be covered by the patient. There are RL cases where countries pay for their citizens to obtain medically necessary healthcare abroad. For example, my own neighbour’s daughter here in Ireland was flown to Sweden recently for necessary emergency treatment. As far as I am aware, the state paid for the flights for the patient and two adults and will ultimately pay for the medical treatment received. Member states should not be prohibited from arranging and paying for this if they so wish. There is also the possibility that an individual's health insurer may cover part or all of such costs which would not be the patient themselves financing it.

Could the whole section be rephrased as not obliging member nations to cover such treatments sought abroad but encouraging them to do so if the same standard of care is not available domestically?

6: States that no nation is responsible for covering future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure.

I’m uneasy with this section. If the treatment was medically necessary, why shouldn’t the member nation cover the individual upon their return? Particularly if due process under section 1, either by courts or doctors, decided that the treatment was in fact medically necessary.

Can it be made explicit that it would only apply to non-medically necessary treatment received abroad?

Also, change “no nation” to “no member nation”.

7: Clarifies that no nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly.

I don’t quite get what the “above any requirements …” is supposed to mean. Could you just chop it there?

Also, change “no nation” to “no member nation”.

IC: “The People’s Republic of Bananaistan will oppose this anti-egalitarian attack on solidarity. Furthermore, we feel that the whole project is redundant considering that the WA funds member state’s health services if it is necessary under GAR#97.”

- Ted

[New Waldensia]

I also note that the clause refers to “citizens and permanent residents”. Temporary residents are therefore outside the scope of the clause. Is this your intention? Would “individuals” work as well?

I didn't go with "individuals" or "temporary residents" because somebody would construe that to mean tourists. I felt that citizens and permanent residents fit the bill best.

I’d recommend that you use whatever terminology you use in section 1 here rather than just “permanent residents” as well

Good catch

I don’t really see the point of the “as long ….” phrase, and it is rather clunky.

See people like Araraurkar who objected until I had that in.

Also, the whole section is a repeal hook as the extent to which member nations may not take such legal action is not qualified. Surely this should only be that member nations cannot take legal action against medical tourists in respect of their having sought or received healthcare abroad? At the moment it reads like a blanket prohibition of any legal action for any reason against medical tourists and I would suggest that you rewrite the section to make it clear that it is a prohibition of legal action only in respect of the medical tourists having sought or received medically necessary healthcare abroad.

I can re-work that section.

Could the whole section be rephrased as not obliging member nations to cover such treatments sought abroad but encouraging them to do so if the same standard of care is not available domestically?

I can work on an edit along those lines. The intent was to dissuade concerns about forcing nations to pay for care performed outside their borders.

I’m uneasy with this section. If the treatment was medically necessary, why shouldn’t the member nation cover the individual upon their return? Particularly if due process under section 1, either by courts or doctors, decided that the treatment was in fact medically necessary.
Can it be made explicit that it would only apply to non-medically necessary treatment received abroad?

That was another concession to Araraukar.

I don’t quite get what the “above any requirements …” is supposed to mean. Could you just chop it there?

That's referring to existing measures such as the one dealing with emergency care. If I left it at "no nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients" I'd get CONTRADICTION!!1!1 ILLEGAL!1!! thrown at me again.

[Araraukar]

I don’t really see the point of the “as long ….” phrase, and it is rather clunky.

See people like Araraurkar who objected until I had that in.

OOC: One R too many, but close. And isn't it better that I point things out before they're at vote?

Can it be made explicit that it would only apply to non-medically necessary treatment received abroad?

That was another concession to Araraukar.

Because I would dig up examples of parents deciding to have boob implants on their 12-yo daughter so she can win Little Miss Sweetypoo competitions or other such things, since they can make medical decisions on behalf of their children, even against the child's will, and you shouldn't be letting them dodge national laws prohibiting such "child abuse" (which isn't otherwise covered by existing legislation).

And the whole point of the proposal, the way Waldensia put it (I'm sure I can find it to quote if you insist) was to let people seek medical help that they need but can't get in their own nation, either in a timely-enough fashion or in as good quality, or which doesn't exist in their nation.

If any of you thinks I don't know what I'm talking about, want me to dig up all the TGs and posts that we got with the first attempt at the non-life-threatening emergency care? The way people misunderstood that one would mostly fit as arguments against this one.

That's referring to existing measures such as the one dealing with emergency care. If I left it at "no nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients" I'd get CONTRADICTION!!1!1 ILLEGAL!1!! thrown at me again.

I don't remember ever using capital letters to yell at you. But yes, it'd be contradiction.

[Fauxia]

Araraukar. No copy paste.

[Araraukar]

Araraukar. No copy paste.

OOC: I can defend my own name, thanks. And they got it right once.

[Fauxia]

Araraukar. No copy paste.

OOC: I can defend my own name, thanks. And they got it right once.

I’m just bragging that I can spell it, not that I can prove that

Oh, they got it right once, I see that now, I didn’t know what you were talking about

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's referring to existing measures such as the one dealing with emergency care. If I left it at "no nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients" I'd get CONTRADICTION!!1!1 ILLEGAL!1!! thrown at me again.

I don't remember ever using capital letters to yell at you. But yes, it'd be contradiction.

In what absurd world is that the case? What, do words no longer have meaning? When he says that No nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care... that means that No nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care. And so far as internal contradiction does not exist per [2017] GAS 11, it is not internal contradiction and not illegal.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: I don't recall yelling at Waldensia ^that way either.

[New Waldensia]

Newest edit.

Freedom to Seek Medical Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat even with the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that some nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

The General Assembly hereby:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, including complete refusal to accept non-resident patients,

3: Requires that member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents who as it relates to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

5: Declares that patients seeking to travel to a foreign nation for the purpose of obtaining medical care or treatment are financially responsible for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.‎ However, member nations are not prohibited from assisting in financial or other means if they so desire.

6: States that no member nations are responsible for covering are neither obligated to cover future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure, nor prohibited from contributing to the financial expense of such costs.

7: Clarifies that no member nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly.

That's referring to existing measures such as the one dealing with emergency care. If I left it at "no nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients" I'd get CONTRADICTION!!1!1 ILLEGAL!1!! thrown at me again.

I don't remember ever using capital letters to yell at you. But yes, it'd be contradiction.

OOC: All said in jest.

[New Waldensia]

I don’t really see the point of the “as long ….” phrase, and it is rather clunky.

OOC: Hey, if "feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats" can make it in a resolution, I'm not looking for poetic smoothness or Coolidge-esque laconicism. If it's clunky, yet covers all the bases it needs to cover, that's how it's going to be. Folks can read a few extra words here and there.

[Araraukar]

OOC: In the new draft, I'd suggest making the relevant bit of clause 4 read "as relating to them seeking". Also, I'd probably snip the new additions from the ends of clauses 5 and 6 out and put them in a "Clarifies that nothing in this resolution forbids member nations from financially assisting [people]" (or similar effect) clause of its own.

OOC: All said in jest.

Hehehe, taken in the same spirit, don't worry.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: In the new draft, I'd suggest making the relevant bit of clause 4 read "as relating to them seeking". Also, I'd probably snip the new additions from the ends of clauses 5 and 6 out and put them in a "Clarifies that nothing in this resolution forbids member nations from financially assisting [people]" (or similar effect) clause of its own.

OOC: good idea. I also forgot to combine 2 and 7.

[New Waldensia]

Latest. Combined two of the clauses, added a new one. I'm hoping to submit this again soon.

Freedom to Seek Medical Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat even without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that some nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that many rare some diseases, conditions, and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

The General Assembly hereby:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, including complete refusal to accept non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly,

3: Requires that member nations respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives,

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as it relates relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

5: Declares that patients seeking to travel to a foreign nation for the purpose of obtaining medical care or treatment are financially responsible for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation,‎ However, member nations are not prohibited from assisting in financial or other means if they so desire.

6: States that member nations are neither not obligated to cover future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure,, nor prohibited from contributing to the financial expense of such costs.

7: Notes that member nations are not prohibited from assisting in defraying the financial cost associated with citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care under this measure.

8: Clarifies that no member nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Some of the active clauses end with full stops while others end with commas. We recommend ensuring that there is consistency.

Neville: Stylistic issues aside, what does this proposal do that GA #279 a.k.a. Right of Emigration doesn't already do?

[Araraukar]

Neville: Stylistic issues aside, what does this proposal do that GA #279 a.k.a. Right of Emigration doesn't already do?

"GA #279 lets you leave your nation to go live in another on a more permanent basis. This proposal's idea I'm guessing is to let you visit another nation to get treated there, and then be allowed to return back to where you started from. It's called "medical tourism"," Johan explained. He was covering for Janis while she was taking some time off.