[PASSED] Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research"

[Auralia]

Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #420

Affirming in principle the importance of biomedical research in improving quality of life in all World Assembly member states,

Simultaneously insisting on the necessity of appropriate bioethical regulation in order to protect the fundamental rights of individuals and other legitimate public interests,

Condemning the target resolution GAR #420, "Protection of Biomedical Research", a resolution that primarily serves to frustrate the responsible regulation of biomedical research by member states,

Noting that the target resolution bars member states from engaging in any regulation of biomedical research except for "scientific standards" and "ethics standards and regulations [that] serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research",

Emphasizing the critical importance of numerous ethical regulations that are relevant in the context of biomedical research and in service of legitimate public interests, even though they cannot be established as preventing direct harm to particular sapient or sentient life,

Appalled that this absurdly broad restriction prohibits (or at least would prohibit, should prior legislation be repealed) member states from, among other things:

1. securing legal protection from harmful medical experimentation to the historically vulnerable class of persons who, while not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research" may indeed regain such capacity, such as individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states,
2. granting precautionary legal protection from potentially harmful medical experimentation to potentially sentient or sapient life that has not yet been definitively "proven" to be such, perhaps due to difficulties in communication,
3. requiring appropriate reverence for the remains of deceased sapient life in the course of biomedical research,
4. mandating that biomedical researchers abide by reasonable financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules, and
5. providing adequate legal protection for the environment in the context of biomedical research, at least with respect to non-sapient animal, plant, bacterial, and fungal life such as coral reefs and old-growth forests,

Understanding that significant portions of the remainder of the target resolution are largely redundant in light of GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act" and GAR #219, "Biomedical Innovation Org", for the following reasons:

1. the target resolution requires the Biomedical Innovation Organization (BIO) to coordinate "international efforts at biomedical research", despite the fact that GAR #219 already requires the BIO to coordinate "research on treatments involving biomedical tissues conducted within WA member nations",
2. the target resolution mandates the BIO with developing minimum scientific and ethical standards for biomedical research and serving as an advisory body for biomedical ethics organizations and regulatory bodies, even though GAR #111 already establishes and regulates bodies required for upholding medical research ethics in member states, and
3. the target resolution establishes an "internationally-accessible database of ongoing biomedical research within Member-States", even though GAR #219 already requires the BIO to include "research data for biomedical innovations as a part of the Database Of Clinical Treatments Under Study",

Seeking to remove harmful and redundant legislation from the pages of international law,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #420, "Protection of Biomedical Research".

[Auralia]

Please note:

This proposal interprets the term "scientific standards" as used in the target proposal as referring specifically to standards relating to the quality of the research itself, such as the proper application of the scientific method. This does not interpret the term as encompassing regulation that serves ethical or other legitimate public interests. This interpretation is based on the fact that "ethical" standards are clearly distinguished from "scientific standards" by the target proposal.

This proposal understands the target proposal to be restricting all regulation that has the effect of impeding biomedical research, as opposed to regulation specifically targeted at biomedical research. Such a narrow definition would render the restriction meaningless.

This proposal understands the term "harm to life provably sentient or sapient" to refer to direct harm rather than indirect harm, since almost anything can be characterized as in some way indirectly harmful to sentient or sapient life. Such a broad definition would again render the restriction meaningless.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Honest Mistake Violation:

Appalled that this restriction prohibits member states from engaging in numerous forms of legitimate regulation of biomedical research that relate neither to direct harm to sentient or sapient life nor to scientific standards, including:
mandating ethical treatment in biomedical research of individuals who are not sapient or sentient at the time of research, even though they were previously or will develop that capacity, such as:
individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states, and

Given that Standing World Assembly Law considers mentally-ill members of a Sapient Species to be Sapient regardless of individual capacity to prove sapience, the resolution does not, and cannot do anything of the sort.

[Auralia]

OOC:
Honest Mistake Violation:

Appalled that this restriction prohibits member states from engaging in numerous forms of legitimate regulation of biomedical research that relate neither to direct harm to sentient or sapient life nor to scientific standards, including:
mandating ethical treatment in biomedical research of individuals who are not sapient or sentient at the time of research, even though they were previously or will develop that capacity, such as:
individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states, and

Given that Standing World Assembly Law considers mentally-ill members of a Sapient Species to be Sapient regardless of individual capacity to prove sapience, the resolution does not, and cannot do anything of the sort.

The provision to which I assume you are referring requires equality between mentally-ill humans and mentally-ill members of other sapient species, not equality between mentally-ill and non-mentally ill members of a particular species.

Moreover, a coma or persistent vegetative state -- or more generally, unconsciousness -- is generally not considered to be a mental illness or psychiatric disorder.

[Stoskavanya]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe the proposal at vote would mandate that researchers ignore copyright patents, since it does not relate to harm of the subject.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think procedures respecting copyright, patent or financial regulations fall under the auspice of a biomedical research procedure.

[Tinfect]

The provision to which I assume you are referring requires equality between mentally-ill humans and mentally-ill members of other sapient species, not equality between mentally-ill and non-mentally ill members of a particular species.

OOC:
Why do you have this aversion to actually reading legislation? Is it because you already know you're not going to comply with them, so you just don't bother?

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to humans below the age of majority and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the sapient beings below the age of majority and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being [...]

It very specifically does exactly that.

Oh, and, more violations I missed on the first pass, also Honest Mistake:

restrictions on the use in biomedical research of certain kinds of non-sapient or sentient animals, plants, fungi, or other biological organisms for the purposes of environmental protection, and

The Resolution does nothing of the sort, as it definitionally does not affect Environmental Protection laws, National or International.

other ethical regulations that arguably do not prevent direct harm to particular sapient or sentient life, such as financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules,

The resolution does nothing of the sort, as such are, on one hand, legitimate scientific concerns, and on the other, procedural regulations in the first place, and therefore not affected by the legislation.

[Auralia]

I don't think procedures respecting copyright, patent or financial regulations fall under the auspice of a biomedical research procedure.

If copyright or patent rules have the effect of inhibiting biomedical research and cannot be justified as an authorized scientific or ethical regulation (or are not grandfathered in by current GA resolutions), then I think you can plausibly argue that they violate the target proposal, yes.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

OOC:
Why do you have this aversion to actually reading legislation? Is it because you already know you're not going to comply with them, so you just don't bother?

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to humans below the age of majority and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the sapient beings below the age of majority and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being [...]

It very specifically does exactly that.

Before I discuss the proper interpretation of GAR #355, I feel the need to break my silence about something: You -- the player, not the thin veneer of your in character persona -- are a rude and unpleasant person. You treat other players, including me, with clear but undeserved contempt, and thereby make this game less fun for us to play.

Well, I've had enough. Either treat me with the appropriate respect and dignity that is owed to all players of this game, or I'll just block you and save myself the pain of having to interact with you.

In this instance, your sarcastic arrogance is unwarranted -- your interpretation is wrong. The clause clearly states that member states must grant the same rights given to humans who are young/mentally-ill to members of another sapient species that are young/mentally-ill. It says absolutely nothing about equality of rights between those who are young/mentally-ill versus those who are not young/mentally-ill.

This is consistent with the overarching purpose of that resolution, which is to establish equality between humans and other sapient species, not between individuals of the same species in different stages of development or states of health.

Oh, and, more violations I missed on the first pass, also Honest Mistake:

restrictions on the use in biomedical research of certain kinds of non-sapient or sentient animals, plants, fungi, or other biological organisms for the purposes of environmental protection, and

The Resolution does nothing of the sort, as it definitionally does not affect Environmental Protection laws, National or International.

It does so implicitly, as environmental legislation that constitutes an effective restriction on biomedical research falls within the scope of your proposal.

other ethical regulations that arguably do not prevent direct harm to particular sapient or sentient life, such as financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules,

The resolution does nothing of the sort, as such are, on one hand, legitimate scientific concerns, and on the other, procedural regulations in the first place, and therefore not affected by the legislation.

Your resolution clearly distinguishes between ethical and scientific regulations, and financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules fall under the former rather than the latter category. Such regulations, insofar as they obstruct biomedical research, are prohibited by your proposal in the absence of a basis in preventing direct harm to sapient or sentient life.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: While we are happy to support this repeal as is, we suggest that the following highlighted section:

mandating ethical treatment in biomedical research of individuals who are not sapient or sentient at the time of research, even though they were previously or will develop that capacity, such as:
prenatal life, such as embryos and fetuses, and other such life in an early stage of development,

...be removed as it may give the wrong impression to some of our more pro-choice Delegations. The last thing a nation with your track record wants to do is to give people a reason to believe that you intend to ban abortion through the backdoor.

[Tinfect]

Before I discuss the proper interpretation of GAR #355, I feel the need to break my silence about something: You -- the player, not the thin veneer of your in character persona -- are a rude and unpleasant person.

OOC:
The Imperial Delegation's condescension towards various delegations is not my own.

You treat other players, including me, with clear but undeserved contempt, and thereby make this game less fun for us to play.

And your constant air of moral and intellectual superiority in OOC interactions is utterly infuriating and I lack patience for it.

Well, I've had enough. Either treat me with the appropriate respect and dignity that is owed to all players of this game, or I'll just block you and save myself the pain of having to interact with you.

Have fun!

In this instance, your sarcastic arrogance is unwarranted -- your interpretation is wrong. The clause clearly states that member states must grant the same rights given to humans who are young/mentally-ill to members of another sapient species that are young/mentally-ill. It says absolutely nothing about equality of rights between those who are young/mentally-ill versus those who are not young/mentally-ill.

Presumably, when members of a species that is generally considered sapient, but cannot individually be proven sapient, are treated as Sapient they have the same rights as other members of the species, obviously excepting such things as legal competence where appropriate.

Your resolution clearly distinguishes between ethical and scientific regulations, and financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules fall under the former rather than the latter category.

That is plainly false. To the extent that they can be considered either, it is purely a scientific regulation, as it relates to credibility and reliability, the removal or identification of potential biases. In any case, they are, in fact, procedural regulations, and thus the proposal does not affect them.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC:
The Imperial Delegation's condescension towards various delegations is not my own.

OOC: Is that why the comment that Auralia was complaining about was OOC? Was that just 'the Imperial Delegation's condescension'?

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal would benefit, we think, if it had examples of non-sapient and non-sentient animals that, despite their status, deserve national regulatory protection -- squids, octopuses, corals, etc.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

This proposal would benefit, we think, if it had examples of non-sapient and non-sentient animals that, despite their status, deserve national regulatory protection -- squids, octopuses, corals, etc.

"Octopuses are pretty provably sentient, if not actually sapient."

[Auralia]

The draft has been updated.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Tinfect]

The draft has been updated.

OOC:
Still illegal.

[Clean Land]

Auralia is right about the scope of the proposal,

and the author is wrong:
Lets apply logic.

General restrictions apply to everything.
Biomedical research is part of everything.
Thus, general restrictions apply to biomedical research.
Restrictions that apply to biomedical research are restrictions of biomedical research.
Thus, general restrictions are restrictions on biomedical research.

Now, you CAN simply include a "does not apply to biomedical research" boilerplate into all your domestic legislation...
but that does not change the fact that you can do everything for biomedical research as long as it does not threaten sapient or sentinent life.
Property rights(including patents), religious convictions, and so on.
Yes, some restrictions are protected by existing WA legislation. But those can be repealed. And then...
And lots of restrictions are NOT protected by WA legislation.

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal would benefit, we think, if it had examples of non-sapient and non-sentient animals that, despite their status, deserve national regulatory protection -- squids, octopuses, corals, etc.

"Octopuses are pretty provably sentient, if not actually sapient."

Sentience is the ability to feel pain, Ambassador . . .

[Kiravian WA Mission]

"The Kiravian Mission stands firmly in support of this repeal. There is no sphere of human activity that is beyond the scope of right and wrong. Scientific research, with its awesome potential to affect all aspects of life, often with transnational social and political consequences, must be subject to moral constraints and reasonable governmental regulation. 'Protection of Biomedical Research' hamstrings the necessary right of sovereign states to regulate research conducted on their territory out of fear that some nations might subscribe to bioethical schools of thought that are out of fashion in certain parts of the world. The ideological knee-jerk reaction that is 'Protection of Biomedical Research' ought to be repealed as soon as it is enacted."

[Jabberwocky]

Pardon my ignorance, born perhaps of inexperience, but am I to understand that you are attempting to repeal a proposal that has not yet actually passed?

[Tinfect]

Pardon my ignorance, born perhaps of inexperience, but am I to understand that you are attempting to repeal a proposal that has not yet actually passed?

OOC:
He's preparing a repeal for submission after it passes. It isn't going to work, as its arguments are illegal spurious nonsense, so don't put much stock in it.

[Rvssyav]

OOC:
He's preparing a repeal for submission after it passes. It isn't going to work, as its arguments are illegal spurious nonsense, so don't put much stock in it.

Are you able to explain in full, all aspects of it’s illegality, you made some points earlier but I’m curious what all is actually illegal or if you’re just saying that because you can.

[Tinfect]

Are you able to explain in full, all aspects of it’s illegality, you made some points earlier but I’m curious what all is actually illegal or if you’re just saying that because you can.

OOC:
It contains numerous instances of Honest Mistake violations, to the point that virtually every point of argument is one. I've covered this in part here, and expanded on it elsewhere. It is plainly illegal.

[Swarshengaggen]

Are you able to explain in full, all aspects of it’s illegality, you made some points earlier but I’m curious what all is actually illegal or if you’re just saying that because you can.

OOC:
It contains numerous instances of Honest Mistake violations, to the point that virtually every point of argument is one. I've covered this in part here, and expanded on it elsewhere. It is plainly illegal.

Without making any new points, I don't know why you believe your already-countered expanded points are still valid.

[Tinfect]

Without making any new points, I don't know why you believe your already-countered expanded points are still valid.

OOC:
Because they haven't been countered. They can't be countered. Auralia's interpretation of the Proposal is patently absurd and blatantly unreasonable legislative flailing about desperately trying to find something to ground a repeal on.

securing legal protection from harmful medical experimentation to the historically vulnerable class of persons who, while not "provably sentient or sapient at the time of research" may indeed regain such capacity, such as individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states,

This argument is nonsense, as it is literally impossible for the proposal to do due to standing legislation.

granting precautionary legal protection from potentially harmful medical experimentation to potentially sentient or sapient life that has not yet been definitively "proven" to be such, perhaps due to difficulties in communication,

This argument is nonsense because there is a legitimate scientific standard to actually fucking understanding what you're working with before you fuck with it. In short, if you come across a potentially Sentient or Sapient species and, somehow, cannot determine whether they are sentient or sapient, you shouldn't be performing biomedical research on it because you clearly don't understand enough about what it is in the first place to justify anything of the sort.

requiring appropriate reverence for the remains of deceased sapient life in the course of biomedical research,

This is probably the sole legitimate argument you have against the proposal, but the issue is effectively nonexistent as general regulations regarding handling of corpses, not specifically targeted at biomedical research, remain outside the scope of the legislation, as I've already explained. This argument is just spurious nonsense.

mandating that biomedical researchers abide by reasonable financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules, and

Utter bullshit because there are legitimate scientific reasons for disclosing or preventing such things.

providing adequate legal protection for the environment, at least with respect to non-sapient plant, bacterial, and fungal life such as coral reefs and old-growth forests, in the context of biomedical research,

Complete bullshit as environmental protection legislation is outside the scope of the legislation.

Understanding that the remainder of the resolution, which relates to an expansion of the mandate of the World Health Authority, is largely redundant in light of GAR #111, "Medical Research Ethics Act" and GAR #219, "Biomedical Innovation Org",

And quite frankly, while I won't be pursuing this clause as an Honest Mistake violation, Protection of Biomedical Research gives the organization vastly expanded abilities beyond either of those resolutions, and thus, this argument is also bullshit.

[Clean Land]

Auralia is right about the scope of the proposal,

and the author is wrong:
Lets apply logic.

General restrictions apply to everything.
Biomedical research is part of everything.
Thus, general restrictions apply to biomedical research.
Restrictions that apply to biomedical research are restrictions of biomedical research.
Thus, general restrictions are restrictions on biomedical research.

Now, you CAN simply include a "does not apply to biomedical research" boilerplate into all your domestic legislation...
but that does not change the fact that you can do everything for biomedical research as long as it does not threaten sapient or sentinent life.
Property rights(including patents), religious convictions, and so on.
Yes, some restrictions are protected by existing WA legislation. But those can be repealed. And then...
And lots of restrictions are NOT protected by WA legislation.

OOC:Tinfect, you do not have refuted THIS argument. This argument clearly shows that the scope of your proposal is greater than you think.