[PASSED] Traditional Medicine

[Wrapper]

"Ellipsis would certainly be more standard with WA convention. In any case, this proposal has this delegation's full support."

"Ellipses it is, then."

OOC: Ack, no. Colons, not ellipses.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Ack, no. Colons, not ellipses.

This.

[Bears Armed Mission]

There is a new draft up, and the scope has now been extended from traditional medications to cover all other forms of traditional medical treatment as well.

[Stoskavanya]

Under section 4, you use the term "traditional medicines" but you define "Alternative Medicines" at the beginning of the draft. Is this intentional?

Otherwise I like the new draft.

[Edrarin]

You have Edrarin's support in this proposal.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Under section 4, you use the term "traditional medicines" but you define "Alternative Medicines" at the beginning of the draft. Is this intentional?

No, this is what we call -- in technical language -- an "Oopsy".

Fixed, thank you.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Clause 4.c. has been expanded to require that member nations' governments inform their nations' inhabitants, as well as WASP, about their knowledge of these matters; a type elsewhere in the text has been fixed; and this has now been submitted. I am going to launch a TG campaign now...

EDIT: (OOC) The TG campaign has been launched, although I had to use Bears Armed itself rather than this nation to do so because that's the one which -- thanks to the World Assembly Improvement Foundation -- had the stamps.

[Zone 71]

OOC: Good luck. You have full support from me.

[Christian Democrats]

I apologize for not noticing this sooner, but I don't think the advertising ban is legal . . .

[Whovian Tardisia]

I apologize for not noticing this sooner, but I don't think the advertising ban is legal . . .

Care to elaborate? I can see some likely reasons myself, just wanting to confirm.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Care to elaborate?

Seems to be a thing with CD and his proclamations.

[Christian Democrats]

I apologize for not noticing this sooner, but I don't think the advertising ban is legal . . .

Care to elaborate?

As I posted on the proposal using the GenSec tool:

Contradiction Rule: The ban on advertisements in Section 4 does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions of Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression.

[Kenmoria]

Care to elaborate?

As I posted on the proposal using the GenSec tool:

Contradiction Rule: The ban on advertisements in Section 4 does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions of Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression.

(OOC: One of the exceptions listed is “...other forms of academic fraud”, which most traditional medicines fall under.)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Care to elaborate?

As I posted on the proposal using the GenSec tool:

Contradiction Rule: The ban on advertisements in Section 4 does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions of Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression.

Respectfully, that seems an excessive reading of GA30. GA30's definition and mandate are:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

I would not read the resolution as covering advertising at all, much less the blatantly fraudulent advertising trying to entice people to use untested, ineffective, and unsafe substances or acts as a replacement for real medical science and treatment.

[Bears Armed]

As I posted on the proposal using the GenSec tool:

Contradiction Rule: The ban on advertisements in Section 4 does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions of Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression.

Respectfully, that seems an excessive reading of GA30. GA30's definition and mandate are:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

I would not read the resolution as covering advertising at all

OOC: Neither would I. In fact, didn't we have a Modly ruling to that effect, on an earlier proposal, in pre-GenSec days?

[Kenmoria]

"I would use either full stops or brackets after each number in the clause labelling, having both looks slightly odd."

[Bears Armed Mission]

"I would use either full stops or brackets after each number in the clause labelling, having both looks slightly odd."

OOC

Every way in which I have varied the punctuation here seems to have looked "slightly odd" to somebody...

Anyway, rather than wait in hope that GAR#30 can be repealed, I've removed the references to restricting advertisements from this text (Also, I've corrected its use of WASP's full name...) and have submitted that modified version.

Campaign TGs go out, again, as soon as I switch to Bears Armed proper. (Edit: Done.)

[Floydrose]

With deepest respect to the right-honourable Bears Armed Mission, we must respectfully disagree with the Traditional Medicine resolution.

While we understand the desire and the goodwill proposed by such a resolution, we of Skell in general and of Floydrose in particular feel this issue should be handled within the borders of each member nation, as that Nation / Region deems appropriate.

Were this issue to cross borders or in any other way have a possibility of infringing on another Nation / Region, then we feel it would merit World Assembly debate. However, we feel ultimately it is and should always be an individual nation's prerogative to regulate, etc. those issues which may be handled within their borders, thus allowing this august international body to handle matters which may affect all nations. We feel this matter does not warrant handling here and as such should be voted against.

Skell votes NAY.

Thank you.

[East Apikai]

Unless convinced otherwise, we believe we will be voting NAY on the current resolution, for two reasons. First, we do not consider it of international importance. Second, we find enforcement impractical--are we to fine every New Age shop selling herbs?
--WA Ambassador Washina Keller

[Zabaykalye]

We cannot see how clause 3 (e) "To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect" is to be enforced. Are aromatherapists, reiki practitioners, priests and providers of herbal tea to demand proof that a person is undergoing conventional treatment before offering their assistance? What if the person offering the traditional medicine is a friend or relative, or it is self-administered?

Due to this impracticality, and the invasion of personal freedom involved, Zabaykalye votes against.

[Kenmoria]

We cannot see how clause 3 (e) "To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect" is to be enforced. Are aromatherapists, reiki practitioners, priests and providers of herbal tea to demand proof that a person is undergoing conventional treatment before offering their assistance? What if the person offering the traditional medicine is a friend or relative, or it is self-administered?

Due to this impracticality, and the invasion of personal freedom involved, Zabaykalye votes against.

"It is common knowledge that aromatherapists, reiki practitioners and priests invoke medical pseudoscience anyway. Therefore, the Kenmorian delegations does not believe that causing them impracticality is that much of a concern to most nations. However, your point about medicine being administered by oneself or relatives is a good one, and gives us a cause to change our vote to being AGAINST this proposal."

[Discoveria]

The cost of testing all traditional medicines, including those that are used very infrequently and in tiny patient populations, for efficacy and safety is an unproductive use of healthcare funds that could be spent on biomedical research to discover new effective therapies. Discoveria opposes this resolution and intends to comply with the resolution at face value by arranging to test all such medicines after the passage of 100 years, to be deferred periodically and indefinitely.

[Brokemia]

My only problem with this is that I think the definition for “traditional medicine” is too vague. By my understanding of it, tea, which people use for medicinal reasons, would fall under this term.

[Belcrum]

Belcrum on a general level AGREES with the idea that medicine should be tested, approved, and produced according to the highest standards and methodology. Governments have a responsibility to their people to inform them about medicine which were tested on a scientific basis, and show which ones are proven to cure and which don't.

Belcrum is IN FAVOR of banning the advertisement of traditional medicine on the basis of misleading information.
HOWEVER, people also have a right to treat themselves as they want, especially if the situation is grave, and there is no prospect for survival with general treatment.

(...)Defines the term ‘Traditional Medicine’, for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning any medication or other therapeutic technique that is used because of popular belief rather than scientific proof for its effectiveness

Belcrum sees the problem here as one of insufficient education. A majority of traditional medicine has already been tested for it's effectiveness and based on these results were found to be non-medical. In developed countries, healthcare uses only approved and tested medicine. Placebo-effects included.

(e) To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect;

This is a responsibility for sovereign nations themselves, and should not be forced on them by the World Assembly.
Scientific results are universal, but we see no reason to have universal rules for healthcare. In this case, the free market will show which types of healthcare are effective and which ones aren't.
This is a matter for individual nations.
Therefore, Belcrum unfortunately has to vote AGAINST this resolution.

[Bears Armed Mission]

With deepest respect to the right-honourable Bears Armed Mission, we must respectfully disagree with the Traditional Medicine resolution.

While we understand the desire and the goodwill proposed by such a resolution, we of Skell in general and of Floydrose in particular feel this issue should be handled within the borders of each member nation, as that Nation / Region deems appropriate.

Were this issue to cross borders or in any other way have a possibility of infringing on another Nation / Region, then we feel it would merit World Assembly debate. However, we feel ultimately it is and should always be an individual nation's prerogative to regulate, etc. those issues which may be handled within their borders, thus allowing this august international body to handle matters which may affect all nations. We feel this matter does not warrant handling here and as such should be voted against.

"That's fair enough. We considered the facts that using untested 'medicines' is potentially fatal and that 'Life' is a fundamental right sufficient grounds for this proposal, but can smell that others reasonably might disagree. Bear in mind, though, that this proposed resolution would work mainly at the "Strongly Urges" level and thus would leave it basically still up to the individual nations to decide how much they did in this respect: The only outright prohibitions involved are on 'medical' treatments that involve harm to endangered species or that violate the bodily autonomy of sapient beings..."

We cannot see how clause 3 (e) "To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect" is to be enforced. Are aromatherapists, reiki practitioners, priests and providers of herbal tea to demand proof that a person is undergoing conventional treatment before offering their assistance? What if the person offering the traditional medicine is a friend or relative, or it is self-administered?

"Under this proposed resolution's wording, deciding policy on such matters would still be within the individual nations' control. I would point out, however, firstly that anybody offering medical services of any kind without checking whether the potential patients are already receiving other treatments is behaving irresponsibly; and secondly that, cases of treatment being given to friends or relatives -- let alone cases where it is self-administered -- seem rrather unlikely to come to the local legal system's attention unless they actually do turn out to have harmful effects."

The cost of testing all traditional medicines, including those that are used very infrequently and in tiny patient populations, for efficacy and safety is an unproductive use of healthcare funds that could be spent on biomedical research to discover new effective therapies.

"Please note the other replies that II have just made to critics: The fact that most of this proposed resolution's suggested actions are only "strongly urged" rather than outright "required" would neither require you to test those medicines immediately nor forbid you to allow their continued use anyhows, except in a verry limited number of cases. Also, you could get the new agency TMEA to help with that testing."

My only problem with this is that I think the definition for “traditional medicine” is too vague. By my understanding of it, tea, which people use for medicinal reasons, would fall under this term.

"For substances as common as that, TMEA could probably tell you very quickly whether they do have useful effects... and nothing in this proposal would bar you from continuing to allow their use (unless maybeso your 'tea' has rather unusual sources?), especially if they have potentially helpful placebo effects, anyhows."

*<snip>*
HOWEVER, people also have a right to treat themselves as they want, especially if the situation is grave, and there is no prospect for survival with general treatment.
*<snip>*
In developed countries, healthcare uses only approved and tested medicine. Placebo-effects included.

(e) To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect;

This is a responsibility for sovereign nations themselves, and should not be forced on them by the World Assembly.

"Please note my preceding remarks, pointing out how much this proposed resolution does leave to the separate nations."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.