Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,
Clumsy language here, taking into no account best interests, capacity to consent, or age of majority. A baby is not incapacitated, but does lack capacity to consent.
Also problematic here is the explicit handing over of right to consent to next-of-kin.
This is frankly, extremely dangerous legal nonsense.
No reasonable jurisdiction with respect for bodily autonomy should allow a patient's next-of-kin to offer consent on their behalf unless that next of kin is named as having power of attorney over medical decisions, or has parental responsibility over a patient who is a minor without Gillick competence.
Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement, military, or medical personnel,
No.
Medical personnel, sure. But a legal framework that suggests it is acceptable for law enforcement to sedate someone they deem troublesome, or worse for the military to assauly its own nation's citizens is nothing short of dystopian.
While we are aware that there are nations out there that engage in such anti-democratic actions, we do not expect the WA to be promoting such values.
Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner
Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.
Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,
No.
The decision whether or not a substance should be legal or illegal is up to that of sovereign nations to decide, dependent on how liberal or not they are with regards to recreational and medicinal drugs.
Magic mushrooms could be used to spike someone's cupcake mix, and involuntarily sedate them. But in some nations, its permissible to take magic mushrooms.
Too extreme for you?
Alcohol has a sedative side effect, and could be added to someone's soft drink without them being aware. Does that mean alcohol should be banned?
Addressing involuntary administration of substances by banning the substance is not an evidence-based effective policy approach, and the GA should not be encouraging that approach.