NationStates

Protection of Biomedical Research

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Research

---

Recognizing the vast potential of biomedical research to improve and save the lives of the citizens of Member-States,

Applauding the great strides already made in the field by many Member-States,

Desiring to establish a universal scientific standard so as to facilitate international cooperation and advancement,

Appalled by the complete lack of moral fiber demonstrated by organizations that oppose life-saving research,

And condemning the placement of unjust and illegitimate restrictions on such research,

The World Assembly hereby;

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

1. Biomedical Research as the fields of research investigating the causes of disease, disease prevention, treatment, and the mitigation or elimination of medical conditions including, but not limited to: Cancer, Paraplegia, and Motor Neuron Diseases,

Mandates:

1. That Member-States determine the sapience of any species for which the status is as-yet indeterminate or unknown prior to allowing, or engaging in biomedical experimentation on said species,
2. That Member-States consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient, regardless of disability or condition,
3. That any and all research efforts within Member-States, barring those protected for reasons of security, disclose any and all conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, origin and amount of funding, methodological biases, and personal biases in research personnel,
4. That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,
5. That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, and,

Clarifies, to avoid certain deliberate misinterpretations,

• That the above provisions are subject to extant legislation,
• That nothing in this legislation prevents Member-States for ensuring proper respect for the deceased,
• That nothing in this legislation prevents Member-States from enforcing Environmental protections,

And reminds Member-States that any and all determinations of sapience or sentience are subject to extant World Assembly legislation and scientific procedure.

OOC:
New: Protection of Biomedical Research, now no longer susceptible to deliberate misinterpretation and frivolous arguments!

Clarifies, to avoid certain deliberate misinterpretations,
That the above provisions are subject to extant legislation

Oh dear. You're just asking for deliberate misinterpretations there.

"I very much approve of this redraft!"
OOC: Looks good! Support!

Clark Lewis gets up to the stand, looking happy for the first time in 3 days.

“We fully support this measure. If only this existed before!”

OOC: you have my full support

"Support, though the drafting period could perhaps have been slightly longer."

((OOC

Bit soon, surely a longer drafting period would be helpful. Also I can sense the fatigue with voting on this issue

Also I would include a clause that allows regulations that apply to all similar industries to apply. That prevents any weaseling regarding things like zoning.

I am also unhappy that this would prevent nations from prohibiting what it considers abhorrent reaserch. Some nations for example would wish not to participate in embryonic stem-cell reaserch but this resolution would mean that a nation could not prohibit it.

It just looks rushed and to be honest a bit bitter. It just doesn't feel right. ))

OOC: Like srsly, you couldn't wait even one day to get a few opinions?

You have my full suport to this resolution

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Like srsly, you couldn't wait even one day to get a few opinions?

OOC: ^This. Tinfect, c'mon, I know you're trying to block the anti-abortionists from doing their thing first, but that doesn't mean you should rush submission.

Tinfect wrote:That Member-States consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient, regardless of disability or condition,

I realize this was probably not the authoring delegation's intent, but this provision would permit member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. A human embryo is a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:

Tinfect wrote:That Member-States consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient, regardless of disability or condition,

I realize this was probably not the authoring delegation's intent, but this provision would permit member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. A human embryo is a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"I vehemently disagree. To incapacitate someone or something is to render them unfit or incapable or to prevent something or someone from functioning properly. Just because an embryo isn't fit yet or able to function yet doesn't mean it's been incapacitated. I mean, is an infant considered incapacitated because it can't yet lift a five-pound bag of flour?"

Imperial Polk County wrote:

Auralia wrote:I realize this was probably not the authoring delegation's intent, but this provision would permit member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. A human embryo is a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient".

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"I vehemently disagree. To incapacitate someone or something is to render them unfit or incapable or to prevent something or someone from functioning properly. Just because an embryo isn't fit yet or able to function yet doesn't mean it's been incapacitated. I mean, is an infant considered incapacitated because it can't yet lift a five-pound bag of flour?"

Technically, yes. The word "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply that one has been disabled by some external force, merely that one is disabled. One dictionary simply defines the term as "unable to act, respond, or the like (often used euphemistically when one is busy or otherwise occupied)".

The authoring delegation should have used clearer language if they wanted to exclude members of a sapient species at early levels of development.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"I still disagree but I will concede, since we're debating this at all, that the author should have used clearer language."

((OOC I would change the clause about respect to the deceased to respect for the deceased or still living. We need to remember the case of the woman whose cells kept on developing etc. We should allow states to introduce legislation giving individuals the right to prevent their tissue etc being used without consent. That would easily be done if respect was allowed for both living and deceased persons.))

Tinfect wrote:That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research

I would also add that this clause renders this proposal toothless with regard to "protecting" biomedical research. Almost anything can be characterized as a kind of "indirect harm" to sapient life. There are certainly clear indirect harms to sapient life associated with permitting embryonic stem cell research that would permit Auralia to prohibit such research.

Permitting the destruction of human embryos -- fellow members of the human species at an early stage of development -- for the purposes of biomedical research denies the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. As the Catechism points out, "[w]hen the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined". In other words, once we deny the rights of the weakest among us, the rights of all are put at risk.

There is also the simple fact that Auralia's largely Catholic population understandably experiences a great deal of emotional anguish at the thought of harmful and destructive biomedical experimentation on a certain class of human beings being made legal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"The provision for prohibition of embryonic stem-cell research is the only reason why we would vote for this proposal. I, personally, would prefer the repeal to stand."

Ultimately, if the delegation from Tinfect is so keen on forcing member states to permit embryonic stem cell research, why don't they simply do? It's very easy:


Why do they insist on using vague terminology and unclear mandates to try to accomplish this indirectly?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:Ultimately, if the delegation from Tinfect is so keen on forcing member states to permit embryonic stem cell research, why don't they simply do? It's very easy:

Requires member states to permit stem cell research, even where such research necessitates the use and destruction of embryos belonging to a sapient species;

Why do they insist on using vague terminology and unclear mandates to try to accomplish this indirectly?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"It would no doubt be easier to pass this proposal if member states were unaware of this provision."

We have approved the legislation, though we would have preferred a different formulation of the title.

Auralia wrote:Ultimately, if the delegation from Tinfect is so keen on forcing member states to permit embryonic stem cell research, why don't they simply do? It's very easy:

Requires member states to permit stem cell research, even where such research necessitates the use and destruction of embryos belonging to a sapient species;

Why do they insist on using vague terminology and unclear mandates to try to accomplish this indirectly?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

In my personal view, that is a positive. This mandate should be as broad as possible and not made specific to stem cell research.

Moronist Decisions wrote:In my personal view, that is a positive. This mandate should be as broad as possible and not made specific to stem cell research.

As I explained earlier, the mandate is written so broadly that it protects nothing.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:Technically, yes. The word "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply that one has been disabled by some external force, merely that one is disabled. One dictionary simply defines the term as "unable to act, respond, or the like (often used euphemistically when one is busy or otherwise occupied)".

The authoring delegation should have used clearer language if they wanted to exclude members of a sapient species at early levels of development.

To add to this, it is interesting to note clause 2 of the proposal is not actually written with reference to clause 5. It therefore establishes general norms for sapience for the World Assembly -- all member states must "consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient [sic]".

As such, clause 2 might actually require states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research as a violation of Prevention of Child Abuse or similar resolutions.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:

Auralia wrote:Technically, yes. The word "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply that one has been disabled by some external force, merely that one is disabled. One dictionary simply defines the term as "unable to act, respond, or the like (often used euphemistically when one is busy or otherwise occupied)".

The authoring delegation should have used clearer language if they wanted to exclude members of a sapient species at early levels of development.

To add to this, it is interesting to note clause 2 of the proposal is not actually written with reference to clause 5. It therefore establishes general norms for sapience for the World Assembly -- all member states must "consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient [sic]".

As such, clause 2 might actually require states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research as a violation of Prevention of Child Abuse or similar resolutions.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

OOC:
Your frantic grasping for anything resembling an argument is honestly hilarious.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Your frantic grasping for anything resembling an argument is honestly hilarious.

Not at all, and the fact that you are simply asserting that I'm wrong without actually making a counterargument is telling.

Of course, the simple reality is that you would have probably caught these ambiguities and other problems had you waited longer than five seconds to submit after the repeal.

No draft, no support.