[PASSED] Repeal "Protection of Biomedical Research"

[Kenmoria]

So, by "repealing the protection of biomedical research", are we supporting the advancement of biomedical research? Or the opposite? The language is confusing.

(OOC: "Protection of Biomedical research" was designed to support the advancement of biomedical research, however failed to do so adequately, leading to a repeal. Immediately after the repeal, there would be less support for advancement of biomedical research, but it opens up the way to more support for the advancement of biomedical research.)

[Triangle And Square]

TNP's viewpoint:

In regards to the various arguments made by the proposer, we believe that the author has misrepresented what the target resolution actually does. Specifically, it does not require that ethical requirements prevent "direct harm to particular sapient or sentient life". Indirect harm to sapient or sentient life, such as environmental impact, can be regulated under this resolution. Furthermore, as individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states are sapient (though not sentient), harm to them would be preventable under the terms of the target resolution. Continuing, the repeal of this resolution would open a path for future legislation to block biomedical research in the name of religious and moral objections. Ultimately, the issues raised within this repeal are not sufficiently concerning and the repeal of such a resolution could harm the security of research by allowing those who wish to overreach in the name of ethics and morals do so.

In accordance with the reasons stated above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

Guys, I agree with my region here. Please vote against it!

[Uan aa Boa]

The repeal proposal alleges that Protection of Biomedical Research prevents 5 types of safeguarding rules that don't prevent "direct harm" to sapient and sentient life. The wording of the resolution, however, is "harm" and not "direct harm." This disarms a number of the repeal proposal's claims and is, in my view, enough to make it illegal under the Honest Mistake rule.

[Wrapper]

The repeal proposal alleges that Protection of Biomedical Research prevents 5 types of safeguarding rules that don't prevent "direct harm" to sapient and sentient life. The wording of the resolution, however, is "harm" and not "direct harm." This disarms a number of the repeal proposal's claims and is, in my view, enough to make it illegal under the Honest Mistake rule.

Not according to the Secretariat.

[Uan aa Boa]

Not according to the Secretariat.

The Secretariat didn't uphold Tinfect's challenge but that challenge wasn't based on the issue I'm highlighting.

[Little Tralfamadore]

The arguments for repealing show a misunderstanding of terms in the original resolution

Also they show a silly (and inflamatory) use of language.

Coma victims are sapient. They would be protected by this. Even if they weren't they still would be protected as their non-sentience is only a temporary situation.

And coma victims are not "historically vulnerable". There is not a history of coma victims having their rights removed, discriminated againist, etc. That is just trying to manipulate people's emotions using falsehoods

[Auralia]

Responding to the arguments made by the proposer, we believe that the author has misrepresented what the text does.

The repeal was challenged as violating the Honest Mistake rule and found to be legal by a unanimous decision of GenSec. Therefore, at the very least, the repeal's interpretation of the original resolution is a reasonable one.

Specifically, it does not require that ethical requirements prevent "direct harm to particular sapient or sentient life". Indirect harm to sapient or sentient life, such as environmental impact, can be regulated under this resolution.

Only by eviscerating the resolution's primary mandate and rendering it meaningless, as I explained in the legality challenge.

Furthermore, as individuals in comas or persistent vegetative states are sapient (though not sentient), harm to them would be preventable under the terms of the target resolution.

Sentience is a prerequisite for sapience. A being cannot be sapient but not sentient. With that said, a being might be a member of a sapient species, and therefore have the inherent capacity for sapience and sentience despite being neither at a particular moment. Presumably that is what you have in mind here. That, however, is not the condition used by the original resolution.

Not according to the Secretariat.

The Secretariat didn't uphold Tinfect's challenge but that challenge wasn't based on the issue I'm highlighting.

GenSec explicitly stated that the repeal's claim that the target resolution prohibits "financial and conflict of interest disclosure standards" is reasonable. By extension, interpreting "harm" as referring to "direct harm" is reasonable. Emphasis added below:

The challenger attempts to set up a distinction between procedural standards, ethical standards and scientific standards and where there is overlap, such standards that are also ethical and procedural remain within the target’s mandates regarding scientific standards rather than ethical standards. However, the mandates clause, subclause 2 makes no such distinction and mandates the abolition of all ethical standards other than those which serve to protect provably sentient or sapient life. Member states are prohibited from maintaining ethical standards which do not serve to protect such life, such as the repeal’s examples of financial and conflict of interest disclosure standards. Such disclosure standards could be classified as purely ethical standards or both ethical and scientific. In either case, due to their ethical nature, member states are prohibited from enforcing them. We find that this is not an honest mistake violation.

The arguments for repealing show a misunderstanding of terms in the original resolution

Also they show a silly (and inflamatory) use of language.

Coma victims are sapient. They would be protected by this. Even if they weren't they still would be protected as their non-sentience is only a temporary situation.

I've addressed these arguments above. I strongly recommend reading the legality challenge, where all these issues were hashed out.

And coma victims are not "historically vulnerable". There is not a history of coma victims having their rights removed, discriminated againist, etc. That is just trying to manipulate people's emotions using falsehoods

Are you seriously claiming that there isn't a history of mistreatment of disabled people?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Luizebaland]

The arguments for repealing show a misunderstanding of terms in the original resolution .

Exactly. Even the term "Sapient" is being misused. Sapience is closely related to the term "sophia", and is often defined as "transcendent wisdom", "ultimate reality", or the ultimate truth of things, linked to religion.

What they are, in theory, wanting to protect is sentient creatures. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus sentient creatures held certain rights.

Coma victims are sapient. They would be protected by this. Even if they weren't they still would be protected as their non-sentience is only a temporary situation.

No one could logically argue that coma victims, due a temporary medical condition, loses their sentient/sapient condition as human beings.


My Ministry of Health and Ministry of Science and Technology both recommended a vote AGAINST this proposal.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

The arguments for repealing show a misunderstanding of terms in the original resolution .

Exactly. Even the term "Sapient" is being misused. Sapience is closely related to the term "sophia", and is often defined as "transcendent wisdom", "ultimate reality", or the ultimate truth of things, linked to religion.

What they are, in theory, wanting to protect is sentient creatures. Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus sentient creatures held certain rights.

Try again. You have correctly defined sentience, but not sapience (in context). Sapience refers to the ability to use reason and common sense. My dog is sentient, but not sapient. I am both. Being sapient and not sentient would appear to be extremely unlikely.

C.F.: http://grammarist.com/usage/sentience-vs-sapience/ https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sapience

No one could logically argue that coma victims, due a temporary medical condition, loses their sentient/sapient condition as human beings.

OOC:
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1468&context=llr
Footnotes 75, 162, 212, and pages 93 and 108 specifically, and the entire comment beg to differ. And, having read a bit, apparently so do the statutes of a reasonable number of American states.

[Uan aa Boa]

GenSec explicitly stated that the repeal's claim that the target resolution prohibits "financial and conflict of interest disclosure standards" is reasonable. By extension, interpreting "harm" as referring to "direct harm" is reasonable. Emphasis added below:

The challenger attempts to set up a distinction between procedural standards, ethical standards and scientific standards and where there is overlap, such standards that are also ethical and procedural remain within the target’s mandates regarding scientific standards rather than ethical standards. However, the mandates clause, subclause 2 makes no such distinction and mandates the abolition of all ethical standards other than those which serve to protect provably sentient or sapient life. Member states are prohibited from maintaining ethical standards which do not serve to protect such life, such as the repeal’s examples of financial and conflict of interest disclosure standards. Such disclosure standards could be classified as purely ethical standards or both ethical and scientific. In either case, due to their ethical nature, member states are prohibited from enforcing them. We find that this is not an honest mistake violation.

I doubt that the text you've bolded can be regarded as an assurance that the repeal's claim is proofed against all possible objections. What you have there is a rejection of Tinfect's claim that financial and conflict of interest disclosure standards are not ethical. I don't dispute that, but since research which is corrupted by financial influences and conflicts of interest is likely to be medically substandard and has the potential to endorse treatments that aren't safe, appropriate protective regulation is intended to protect sentient/sapient life - the life of the recipients of treatment. What is the purpose of anti-corruption measures if not to ensure the safety of the resulting medical treatment?

In a similar way, environmental degradation causes harm to sentient life, protecting life that might be sentient is a pretty good way of preventing harm to life that is sentient, while performing experiments on non-consenting sapients and failing to respect the remains of the dead would both cause extensive distress, loss of confidence, societal harm and a slippery slope towards eroded sapient rights. All of these are indirect harms, which is why your claim that the target resolution forbids them for not being direct harms is an honest mistake.

[Auralia]

I doubt that the text you've bolded can be regarded as an assurance that the repeal's claim is proofed against all possible objections.

((OOC: Probably not, but I think it does address your particular objection.))

What you have there is a rejection of Tinfect's claim that financial and conflict of interest disclosure standards are not ethical.

((OOC: It's not just a rejection of Tinfect's claim that these standards are not ethical. The ruling explicitly states that such standards "do not act to protect provably sentient or sapient life from harm". You point out, correctly, that such standards probably do have the effect of preventing indirect harm, so therefore GenSec must be using a standard of direct harm.

I agree and specifically advocated for the use of this standard in the challenge, as I think this is the only plausible way to interpret the resolution in such a way that does not effectively nullify its core mandate.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure I specifically argued about "harm" vs. "direct harm" in the challenge, but I did argue on very similar grounds that the resolution targeted all restrictions imparing biomedical research, not just restrictions that specifically targeted it. I also argued in favour of a direct harm standard in this thread itself:

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.

))

[Razul]

((OOC: I'm very new to the WA, and I was wondering if someone could direct me to a WA or Security Council resolution regarding the development of biological weapons, so that I can understand if that should be linked with my decision on this issue? Thank you!))

((OOC: Found it! --If anyone is curious/as new as me--

The resolution that I was looking for is General Assembly Resolution # 242: Biological Warfare Convention

The important sections to me being:

• 3. Member nations shall take all measures necessary and practical in preventing the production, sale, or transfer of biological agents (and/or the components necessary in their construction) from their own nation to another party, if the transfer process is considered to violate the intentions and provisions of this resolution; (emphasis mine)
  
• 4. Such research as mentioned prior shall be limited to the development of vaccinations, the creation of defensive measures or counter measures, or the development of medical treatments.

I was not sure if these restrictions were already in place.))

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not exactly sure how it's relevant, but this is it: viewtopic.php?p=13324353#p13324353

[Razul]

((Oops, thank you!))

[PhantomQuartz]

i vote in

[Imperium Anglorum]

The HM rule has a burden that repeals allege a reasonable interpretation. It too can be a reasonable interpretation that Uan aa Boa is correct, since there is not only one reasonable interpretation. It is left to the voters to choose between those reasonable interpretations and what they desire to believe.

[Novo Razcon]

So, a resolution exists that PREVENTS regulation? Seriously? Voting for the repeal. Life can be nonsentient and nonsapient, so that life should be regulated.

[Kyrloth]

thanks The United Dark Republic for raising my hopes and dashing them again

EDIT: update



Edit 2: Why is nobody talking about how goddamn close this vote is? This has got to be historically close

[Valinaria]

The Queendom and I (defined as "we") consider this dispute is about who is right and who is wrong and and forgets the aim of passing/repealing legislation. In other words, we see this conflict too mired in the huge swamp of politics and agendas and obfuscates our rights as citizens of our world.

OOC: First of all, English is not my mother tongue (or any other's for that matter... sorry couldn't resist haha) so any grammar or language mistake is due to that. Then, I like to point out that I believe any human being, regardless of health condition, is to be considered both sapient and sentient. A coma patient for instance, can feel emotions and certainly can reason things... but he/she cannot prove that. On the other hand, animals are all considered sentient and not proved to be sapient (as of now) as is the case with plants being sentient or not (that is another cup of tea hehe)

IC: The grand majority of citizens from the Queendom has spoken, and as their leader I hereby proclaim... that my vote shall remain my own to know (we have implanted chips anyway... so everyone on the Queendom shall know my answer)

OOC: Yep, still new to the forum and I'm not a habitual participant (or reader for that matter) so excuse my rather convoluted answer that perhaps it doen't actually answers anything haha

[He Qixin]

OOC: This isn't gonna pass. Just as I expected, people are now turning "against" their votes. (That was pun intended.)

[Tinfect]

OOC: This isn't gonna pass. As I expected, people are now turning "against" their votes. (That was pun intended.)

OOC:
It's still the first day, we've had turnarounds bigger than this on this proposal alone, not to mention prior votes.

[He Qixin]

OOC: This isn't gonna pass. As I expected, people are now turning "against" their votes. (That was pun intended.)

OOC:
It's still the first day, we've had turnarounds bigger than this on this proposal alone, not to mention prior votes.

OOC: Yeah, I could count 3 turnarounds, including this time, at the time this post was made. I think its gonna be close, but we'll just see.

Meanwhile, please vote "against" this resolution, everyone. I want to protect my biomedical research.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

After a review of the text, we have to conclude in favor of the the Ambassador from Auralia's position. The operative clause in GAR #420,
"[MANDATES] That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research..."

requires the rescinding of ethics standards and regulations that would "minimize or eliminate harm to life" that while currently NON-sentient or -sapient, has the potential to BE sentient or sapient, such as the insensate in comas or fetuses before birth.

It's a small loophole, but a potentially dangerous one, and thus we rise in support of this repeal.

[Shaktirajya]

After much deliberation, We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote FOR this legislation in concert with Our regional delegate Davelands, with the following, albeit perhaps different reasoning:

Initially, We were skeptical after receiving a telegram from a Catholic (i.e. Abrahamic) nation urging Us to vote for this legislation because We supposed that opposition to this resolution was founded upon Abrahamic political agendas (anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide) based upon metaphysical and supernatural speculations for which there are no proof, but upon closer examination, We have decided to vote FOR this repeal after finding the initial resolution to be redundant (Vide: GAR #111) AND the proposant nation of the initial resolution to have voted for the "Ban on Ritual Sacrifice of Sentient Beings", a ban which We as a Shakta Hindu nation STRONGLY OPPOSE for its intention of injecting matters of THEOLOGY into political resolutions, particularly attempting to impose Buddhist and Jain theology on Us, a Hindu nation, with a strong and enduring legacy of RITUAL SACRIFICE to the Goddess.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya

[Kenmoria]

"The proposal is currently leaning towards against but there are less than 150 votes in it. We urge therefore member nations do vote FOR the proposal as, by repealing this resolution, we open way for a more comprehensive and complete act for the protection of biomedical research."