[PASSED] Ensuring Safe Syringe Use

[Terttia]

OOC: Oh I didn't mean you couldn't use it as a learning opportunity; I more meant to warn you to not be disappointed if you don't reach quorum.

OOC: Ah, gotcha. Thank you, that does make me feel more assured

To be fair, I really didn’t start campaigning for my proposal until around the same time as you are. Although, like Ara’s advice, I did have my campaign figured out at submission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. Directs the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to develop international standards to

1. utilize new, sterile syringes in place of used syringes when possible OR
2. adequately disinfect used syringes for reuse;
3. safely discard syringes that are no longer safe to reuse;
4. determine when a syringe is no longer safe to use and therefore must be discarded;

Capitalisation of the word 'or' is unnecessary. The line with 'or' should not be broken if the other elements are meant to refer to other regulations. Why is it necessary to delegate the creation of clearly-specified standards of an organisation? A resolution requiring that new or properly disinfected syringes be used whenever syringes would be used does not require all that much work.

I would myself not see as unacceptable a requirement that only new syringes be used; they are not that expensive to use relative to the cost of properly acquiring and disinfecting glass ones. Also make sure that your requirements also include hypodermic needles beyond just the plunger portion, to head off misinterpretation.

Mandates that all healthcare organizations and medical personnel follow these international standards or utilize new, sterile syringes when treating or preventing disease with the use of syringes;

Is not the requirement specified in the latter half of this section itself part of those standards?

Charges healthcare organizations with training any medical personnel who treat disease on proper syringe usage and disposal in accordance with this resolution and retrain them should EPARC substantively change the noted international standards.

Perhaps use 'Requires' or synonyms thereof. The word 'charges' sounds like a credit card charge. 'Requires' is not outside the normal legislative vocabulary.

[Sylvai]

-snip-

If the proposal fails to reach quorum, I'll consider these changes to improve the proposal. Thank you, IA.

[Sylvai]

I've begun campaigning through API. Hopefully that'll get enough approvals for the proposal by the deadline.

[Morover]

"This will likely be going to vote at major. I do have one major concern with the proposal, and that's the inclusion of 'or' in 1(a). While it's a fine proposal even with the inclusion of the 'or,' I can't help but feel that the word does add confusion to the proposal. Is it 1(a) or 1(b), with the mandatory enforcement of 1(c) and 1(d)? Or is it either 1(a) or 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d)? My intuition is to say the latter, in which case no standards would be in place for the discarding of used syringes. This could be very problematic, especially with the wording of 'when possible' in 1(a)"

"Regardless of how you read it with the inclusion of the 'or,' there's some vital part of the standard missing. It would be entirely complete if the 'or' wasn't there, but, unfortunately, I haven't done a thorough check of the proposal in several weeks. Even if we ignore the incompleteness of the standards provided, there's still the issue that it only requires standards to be made for either 1(a) or 1(b) (c) and (d), assuming my interpretation is correct. It doesn't make it so nations only need follow certain standards, it rather only makes it so that EPARC need create a standard for either one of those, if that makes any sense."

"Another issue, albeit less troublesome, is the use of 'EPARC' without any aforementioned definition of it. Ideally, you should've done 'Directs the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (henceforth known as EPARC) to develop international standards to...', but that's a small problem that probably won't trip anyone up. Just, less than ideal, that's all."

[Sylvai]

"This will likely be going to vote at major. I do have one major concern with the proposal, and that's the inclusion of 'or' in 1(a). While it's a fine proposal even with the inclusion of the 'or,' I can't help but feel that the word does add confusion to the proposal. Is it 1(a) or 1(b), with the mandatory enforcement of 1(c) and 1(d)? Or is it either 1(a) or 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d)? My intuition is to say the latter, in which case no standards would be in place for the discarding of used syringes. This could be very problematic, especially with the wording of 'when possible' in 1(a)"

"Regardless of how you read it with the inclusion of the 'or,' there's some vital part of the standard missing. It would be entirely complete if the 'or' wasn't there, but, unfortunately, I haven't done a thorough check of the proposal in several weeks. Even if we ignore the incompleteness of the standards provided, there's still the issue that it only requires standards to be made for either 1(a) or 1(b) (c) and (d), assuming my interpretation is correct. It doesn't make it so nations only need follow certain standards, it rather only makes it so that EPARC need create a standard for either one of those, if that makes any sense."

"Another issue, albeit less troublesome, is the use of 'EPARC' without any aforementioned definition of it. Ideally, you should've done 'Directs the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (henceforth known as EPARC) to develop international standards to...', but that's a small problem that probably won't trip anyone up. Just, less than ideal, that's all."

Very good points, I wish I had caught these problems before submitting, especially the EPARC one, which I noticed a day after submitting. That said, I do think it will be clear enough to be enforceable when it passes, despite some of the slight confusion in wording. However, if the resolution comes to a vote and gets defeated due to confusion, I will be happy to make these changes and any others to make the proposal more clear and operable.

My intention was to have nations follow either 1a or 1b, 1c, and 1d, but it does indeed sound like EPARC should create standards for either one or the other. We'll see if this becomes a problem at vote, I suppose. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Morover]

OOC: I can appreciate your persistence, but in the case of passage, I'll likely draft a repeal/replace.

[Sylvai]

OOC: I can appreciate your persistence, but in the case of passage, I'll likely draft a repeal/replace.

OOC: Is it really that big of an issue? I’ve been working on this for over a month, went through the effort of campaigning for it, and I gave ample opportunity for people to point out any flaws with the proposal, including moving it to last call for over a week. I really do think it’s quite clear what the language of the proposal means—there’s ample room for gray area on whether or not the “OR” is referring to EPARC’s standards or is within the standards themselves. I may develop an argument later tonight as to why the proposal is still operable.

I really don’t intend to be rude, but I think it’s inconsiderate given all the time that was available for you and others to provide input on the proposal, especially when it was tagged last call, to repeal my resolution immediately after its prospective passage based on what is in my view a very slight confusion in wording. Repeals, especially so quickly after passage, should be reserved for more serious problems in proposals in my opinion.

I appreciate your thoughts nonetheless.

[Morover]

OOC: I can appreciate your persistence, but in the case of passage, I'll likely draft a repeal/replace.

OOC: Is it really that big of an issue? I’ve been working on this for over a month, went through the effort of campaigning for it, and I gave ample opportunity for people to point out any flaws with the proposal, including moving it to last call for over a week. I really do think it’s quite clear what the language of the proposal means—there’s ample room for gray area on whether or not the “OR” is referring to EPARC’s standards or is within the standards themselves. I may develop an argument later tonight as to why the proposal is still operable.

I really don’t intend to be rude, but I think it’s inconsiderate given all the time that was available for you and others to provide input on the proposal, especially when it was tagged last call, to repeal my resolution immediately after its prospective passage based on what is in my view a very slight confusion in wording. Repeals, especially so quickly after passage, should be reserved for more serious problems in proposals in my opinion.

I appreciate your thoughts nonetheless.

OOC: It’s due simply to the fact that the OR refers to the creation of the standards themselves, rather than the application of the standards upon member-states. I figured I was being more considerate by telling you about my intentions sooner rather than later, so I apologize if that came off wrong.

I do legitimately apologize for not getting to this till now, and I understand how frustrating it can be. I think it’s very explicit in the phrasing, and it’s unfortunate. My drafting a repeal does not necessarily mean people will agree with it, by any means, and id be very happy to work on a replacement with you in the case that people do. If you can convince me, then obviously I’ll hold off.

Its nothing against you, this proposal is in fact very well written aside from this one error. I’m sorry if I came off as rude to you.

[Sylvai]

OOC: It’s due simply to the fact that the OR refers to the creation of the standards themselves, rather than the application of the standards upon member-states. I figured I was being more considerate by telling you about my intentions sooner rather than later, so I apologize if that came off wrong.

I do legitimately apologize for not getting to this till now, and I understand how frustrating it can be. I think it’s very explicit in the phrasing, and it’s unfortunate. My drafting a repeal does not necessarily mean people will agree with it, by any means, and id be very happy to work on a replacement with you in the case that people do. If you can convince me, then obviously I’ll hold off.

Its nothing against you, this proposal is in fact very well written aside from this one error. I’m sorry if I came off as rude to you.

OOC:
That’s okay—sorry for coming off aggressively, I will admit I was a tad frustrated when I read your post. I will attempt to convince you later tonight, but should the problem persist at vote nonetheless, I am definitely open on working on a replacement with you. Thank you for understanding.

[Sylvai]

Alright, I did not realize this would be coming to vote so soon. Allow me to address the concerns raised since the proposal was submitted to the queue.

Firstly, regarding the "OR" in clause 1. The "OR" at hand is located within subclause 1a, so it clearly pertains to the subclauses (which outline the exact standards to be produced). In other words, clause 1 is the clause that is actually directing EPARC to create standards, while the subclauses are the actual standards. So, when read in this context, it clearly means that the standards themselves are to describe that either 1a OR 1b, 1c, and 1d are to be followed by healthcare organizations.

If I had written it in a manner such that EPARC would be directed to either make one or the other standard, it would be written like this:

1. Directs the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to develop international standards to
   
   1. utilize new, sterile syringes in place of used syringes when possible
      OR
   2. adequately disinfect used syringes for reuse;
   3. safely discard syringes that are no longer safe to reuse;
   4. determine when a syringe is no longer safe to use and therefore must be discarded;

so that the OR would be written outside of the list of subclauses which describe the standards to be created.

That's my response on the OR matter. I'll begin campaigning soon.

I'd also like to address Imperium's concerns in the spoiler below.

1. Directs the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to develop international standards to

1. utilize new, sterile syringes in place of used syringes when possible OR
2. adequately disinfect used syringes for reuse;
3. safely discard syringes that are no longer safe to reuse;
4. determine when a syringe is no longer safe to use and therefore must be discarded;

Capitalisation of the word 'or' is unnecessary. The line with 'or' should not be broken if the other elements are meant to refer to other regulations. Why is it necessary to delegate the creation of clearly-specified standards of an organisation? A resolution requiring that new or properly disinfected syringes be used whenever syringes would be used does not require all that much work.

I would myself not see as unacceptable a requirement that only new syringes be used; they are not that expensive to use relative to the cost of properly acquiring and disinfecting glass ones. Also make sure that your requirements also include hypodermic needles beyond just the plunger portion, to head off misinterpretation.

Most of these issues are semantic, however the issue of having EPARC create standards in the first place is something to consider. The reason EPARC would be creating standards, especially in the case of 1b and 1c, is to describe what materials and procedures to be used when disinfecting and discarding syringes. In essence, 1a would amount to a disclaimer attached to 1b, 1c, and 1d, noting that it is always better to use brand new syringes. Getting new syringes is not just a matter of cost, it's a matter of accessibility. Hospitals, especially in rural areas, are more likely to have the cleaning supplies necessary to clean syringes than they are capable of purchasing brand new ones.

Mandates that all healthcare organizations and medical personnel follow these international standards or utilize new, sterile syringes when treating or preventing disease with the use of syringes;

Is not the requirement specified in the latter half of this section itself part of those standards?

Yes, it is repeated, however it doesn't change the actual effect or substance of the resolution and considering I can't change it at this point, it's not a worthwhile issue.

Charges healthcare organizations with training any medical personnel who treat disease on proper syringe usage and disposal in accordance with this resolution and retrain them should EPARC substantively change the noted international standards.

Perhaps use 'Requires' or synonyms thereof. The word 'charges' sounds like a credit card charge. 'Requires' is not outside the normal legislative vocabulary.

[/quote] I suppose next time I will use a better synonym for "mandate". I think I had already used "requires" in a now-removed part of the proposal.

Thank you for your notes and corrections, IA. Your resources were super helpful in creating this proposal btw.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Opposed.

I remain unconvinced that unsafe use of syringes represents a significant enough problem internationally to require global blanket legislation. In the Archivian Federations a combination of the private sector and patient expectations does a fine job of ensuring needles are clean and used properly -- there's no call for a top-down directive to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

I would suggest that the WA does not to legislate on every detail of life, nor to impose safety standards on every aspect of life, and that some things are best left to the sovereignty of individual nations who can judge for themselves what legislation is required.

On the other hand, if there were convincing evidence that this represents a large scale enough problem to require blanket legislation (as opposed to say, targeted spending to problem nations that are known to have poor medical hygeine standards), then we might be convinced to change our position.

[BeatsMe]

Exactly this:

Opposed.

I remain unconvinced that unsafe use of syringes represents a significant enough problem internationally to require global blanket legislation. In the Archivian Federations a combination of the private sector and patient expectations does a fine job of ensuring needles are clean and used properly -- there's no call for a top-down directive to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

I would suggest that the WA does not to legislate on every detail of life, nor to impose safety standards on every aspect of life, and that some things are best left to the sovereignty of individual nations who can judge for themselves what legislation is required.

On the other hand, if there were convincing evidence that this represents a large scale enough problem to require blanket legislation (as opposed to say, targeted spending to problem nations that are known to have poor medical hygeine standards), then we might be convinced to change our position.

[Araraukar]

I remain unconvinced that unsafe use of syringes represents a significant enough problem internationally to require global blanket legislation.

"This is the reason why we are voting "against", as well. Nations already able to comply, will have similar guidelines in place already - because doing things any other way would just be wasted effort - and nations unable to comply will remain unable to comply and get fined for it, should this pass."

[Morover]

Alright, I did not realize this would be coming to vote so soon. Allow me to address the concerns raised since the proposal was submitted to the queue.

Firstly, regarding the "OR" in clause 1. The "OR" at hand is located within subclause 1a, so it clearly pertains to the subclauses (which outline the exact standards to be produced). In other words, clause 1 is the clause that is actually directing EPARC to create standards, while the subclauses are the actual standards. So, when read in this context, it clearly means that the standards themselves are to describe that either 1a OR 1b, 1c, and 1d are to be followed by healthcare organizations.

If I had written it in a manner such that EPARC would be directed to either make one or the other standard, it would be written like this:

1. Directs the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to develop international standards to
   
   1. utilize new, sterile syringes in place of used syringes when possible
      OR
   2. adequately disinfect used syringes for reuse;
   3. safely discard syringes that are no longer safe to reuse;
   4. determine when a syringe is no longer safe to use and therefore must be discarded;

so that the OR would be written outside of the list of subclauses which describe the standards to be created.

That's my response on the OR matter. I'll begin campaigning soon.

OOC: Frankly, this is enough for me. I'm still incredibly hesitant on the subject, though, and feel it could have been written more clearly.

However, I must bring this question posed on the TNP forums to you. It seems rather concerning to me, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention before taking a definitive stance on it.

[Sylvai]

OOC: Frankly, this is enough for me. I'm still incredibly hesitant on the subject, though, and feel it could have been written more clearly.

However, I must bring this question posed on the TNP forums to you. It seems rather concerning to me, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention before taking a definitive stance on it.

Since the proposal specifically applies to syringes being used to treat disease, there is a necessary implication that a needle is attached to it, otherwise, a syringe wouldn't be utilized in the first place. Therefore, EPARC would have to mention the needle attachment (and thus write disposal/reuse standards regarding it) as it is intrinsically related to the medical use of a syringe.

To put the OR matter in simpler terms, clause 1 is directing EPARC to create standards, and the subclauses are the standards. Since OR is within a subclause, it is related to the standards. I understand the confusion though and I do wish I could rewrite it to clarify that, but it shouldn't change the effect the resolution has on its AOE. It's just a matter of readability.

Thank you for bringing the syringe issue to my attention. I hope I've addressed the issue adequately for you; feel free to ask me any questions about it if I haven't, though.

EDIT: That's also not to mention that the colloquial use of the term "syringe" typically includes the needle, as well.

[Kenmoria]

EDIT: That's also not to mention that the colloquial use of the term "syringe" typically includes the needle, as well.

(OOC: The language in GA proposals is assumed to be formal, not colloquial. I think Morover’s point is a good one. Although the ERPAC has made standards that would adequately disinfect the syringe, the needle itself wouldn’t be sterilised in the same manner, despite them being linked. A syringe also can be used with a tube to draw fluid, so clearly has non-needle-based uses.)

[Sylvai]

EDIT: That's also not to mention that the colloquial use of the term "syringe" typically includes the needle, as well.

(OOC: The language in GA proposals is assumed to be formal, not colloquial. I think Morover’s point is a good one. Although the ERPAC has made standards that would adequately disinfect the syringe, the needle itself wouldn’t be sterilised in the same manner, despite them being linked. A syringe also can be used with a tube to draw fluid, so clearly has non-needle-based uses.)

“I did make an argument regarding the formal use of the term as well. The resolution references syringes used in treating disease explicitly, of which the vast majority of the time the syringe is attached to a needle and the entire combined item is being utilized. Nevertheless, there may be times actually (as you point out) where a syringe may not be attached to a needle and still used in treating disease, such as drawing other fluids, in which case EPARC’s standards will cover those non-needle instances as well. It would be disingenuous of EPARC to interpret the resolution as not referencing all treatment procedures involving a syringe considering the broader context of the resolution and the drafting process, which they have access to. Judicially interpreting the resolution’s contents would take into account these two factors as well.

And even an extremely specific reading of the resolution as only applying to the body of a syringe would still protect patients from disease. I do appreciate Morover’s point, however it’s worth considering these arguments as well.”

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The language in GA proposals is assumed to be formal, not colloquial. I think Morover’s point is a good one. Although the ERPAC has made standards that would adequately disinfect the syringe, the needle itself wouldn’t be sterilised in the same manner, despite them being linked. A syringe also can be used with a tube to draw fluid, so clearly has non-needle-based uses.)

“I did make an argument regarding the formal use of the term as well. The resolution references syringes used in treating disease explicitly, of which the vast majority of the time the syringe is attached to a needle and the entire combined item is being utilized. Nevertheless, there may be times actually (as you point out) where a syringe may not be attached to a needle and still used in treating disease, such as drawing other fluids, in which case EPARC’s standards will cover those non-needle instances as well. It would be disingenuous of EPARC to interpret the resolution as not referencing all treatment procedures involving a syringe considering the broader context of the resolution and the drafting process, which they have access to. Judicially interpreting the resolution’s contents would take into account these two factors as well.

And even an extremely specific reading of the resolution as only applying to the body of a syringe would still protect patients from disease. I do appreciate Morover’s point, however it’s worth considering these arguments as well.”

(OOC: Personally, I don’t think that committees would legislate on things beyond the direct purview of what has been ordered by resolutions. On the other hand, other posters such as ÍA have stated that they think GA committees would follow a maximalist interpretation. Either way, I won’t be voting against because of it. Regulations about syringe safety are still good, irregardless of whether needles are included.)

[Sylvai]

Good points, and I agree. There’s room for interpretation here but either way this will improve patient and international health. Just trying to give the best possible defense of my proposal

[WayNeacTia]

Good points, and I agree. There’s room for interpretation here but either way this will improve patient and international health. Just trying to give the best possible defense of my proposal

No it really won't. All you have done is create a committee that will cost trillions trying to do what can be done on the national level. Any reasonable nation would already have these precautions in place and probably have for decades.

[Araraukar]

Good points, and I agree. There’s room for interpretation here but either way this will improve patient and international health. Just trying to give the best possible defense of my proposal

No it really won't. All you have done is create a committee that will cost trillions trying to do what can be done on the national level.

OOC: ...all the committee does is create the guidelines. How's that going to cost trillions?

[Sylvai]

Good points, and I agree. There’s room for interpretation here but either way this will improve patient and international health. Just trying to give the best possible defense of my proposal

No it really won't. All you have done is create a committee that will cost trillions trying to do what can be done on the national level. Any reasonable nation would already have these precautions in place and probably have for decades.

“The committee was already in existence. I doubt it will cost trillions of dollars to create standards, and I certainly doubt tbat it would cost an unaffordable amount for health programs to use cleaning chemicals that they already have to sterilize syringes if they can’t reasonably use new ones. And note your qualifier: ‘reasonable’ nations. Is every nation in the WA necessarily reasonable? Because if a single one is not, then patient health is compromised for quite literally the entire international community. Disease is a global matter, not a national one, and it is perfectly within the purview of the GA to address matters of global concern.”

[WayNeacTia]

No it really won't. All you have done is create a committee that will cost trillions trying to do what can be done on the national level. Any reasonable nation would already have these precautions in place and probably have for decades.

And note your qualifier: ‘reasonable’ nations. Is every nation in the WA necessarily reasonable? Because if a single one is not, then patient health is compromised for quite literally the entire international community.

Reasonable nation theory in the game assumes that nations are reasonable. Resolutions are usually written assuming nations are reasonable. So yes, my point stands.

OOC: ...all the committee does is create the guidelines. How's that going to cost trillions?

If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have noted that I stated that any reasonable nation would already have these guidelines in place. Hell any local health district, or even the local fucking doctors office would have these guidelines in place. This resolution (and I use that term very loosely) makes it sound like nations are run by a bunch of junkies who regularly share needles and encourage their population to do the same.

[Tinhampton]

Ensuring Safe Syringe Use was passed 13,592 votes to 2,041.

Well played!