NationStates

Thanks to all who helped with the resolution!

Health | Healthcare

The World Assembly,

Concerned with the high likelihood of transmitting communicable disease through the reuse of inadequately sterilized syringes;

Aware that higher disease transmission rates in any nation place the international community at risk of an outbreak, especially when they result from unsafe treatment;

Acknowledging that previous healthcare legislation has neglected to address the incredible importance of safe syringe use;

Hereby,

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;
2. 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;
   
   
3. 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.

Any suggestions for campaigning? Thanks in advance.

Last edit: Submitted.

Opposed. More unnecessary meddling in national affairs.

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:Opposed. More unnecessary meddling in national affairs.

"That's quite a strange argument against this proposal. There would be no meddling at all.
1. No member nation would be forced to adopt the syringe use standards. Thus the use of 'strongly encourages'.
2. Only poorer nations who request assistance would receive assistance. Not any poorer nation.

Indeed, the proposal is entirely optional, benefitting those who need and request help in clean syringe use without infringing on other nations by determining what they should and should not do."

Sylvai wrote:"Indeed, the proposal is entirely optional, benefitting those who need and request help in clean syringe use without infringing on other nations by determining what they should and should not do."

(OOC: First of all, well done on a very good first draft. However, the optionality aspect could be a problem. Although this won’t fall afoul of the optionality rule, due to the strongly encouraging clause, it might have issues with the strength rule. As far as I recall, AoEs have to be of at least significant strength, and merely urging action isn’t enough for the proposal to qualify.)

Probable mistake in red.

Sylvai wrote:c. "syringe" as a medical device used to remove or inject fluid from an organism;

I pretty sure that it isn’t possible to inject fluids away from an organism. Perhaps say “inject or remove fluid to or from an organism”.

Kenmoria wrote:

Sylvai wrote:"Indeed, the proposal is entirely optional, benefitting those who need and request help in clean syringe use without infringing on other nations by determining what they should and should not do."

(OOC: First of all, well done on a very good first draft. However, the optionality aspect could be a problem. Although this won’t fall afoul of the optionality rule, due to the strongly encouraging clause, it might have issues with the strength rule. As far as I recall, AoEs have to be of at least significant strength, and merely urging action isn’t enough for the proposal to qualify.)

(OOC: Understood. How could I go about improving the proposal to adjust for this problem? Thank you for pointing that out.)

Terttia wrote:Probable mistake in red.

Sylvai wrote:c. "syringe" as a medical device used to remove or inject fluid from an organism;

I pretty sure that it isn’t possible to inject fluids away from an organism. Perhaps say “inject or remove fluid to or from an organism”.

Correct, thank you.

Sylvai wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: First of all, well done on a very good first draft. However, the optionality aspect could be a problem. Although this won’t fall afoul of the optionality rule, due to the strongly encouraging clause, it might have issues with the strength rule. As far as I recall, AoEs have to be of at least significant strength, and merely urging action isn’t enough for the proposal to qualify.)

(OOC: Understood. How could I go about improving the proposal to adjust for this problem? Thank you for pointing that out.)

(OOC: You will need some sort of compulsory action for member nations to undertake, excluding paperwork and other such duties to do with a committee. Quite a lot of options are available here, and it doesn’t have to be anything particularly strenuous or sweeping for member states.

Terttia wrote:Probable mistake in red.

I pretty sure that it isn’t possible to inject fluids away from an organism. Perhaps say “inject or remove fluid to or from an organism”.

Correct, thank you.

In this clause, I don’t think you need a definition at all. There is only one meaning of syringe, and it is not something that could be misinterpreted by a member nation for any conceivable benefit.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: You will need some sort of compulsory action for member nations to undertake, excluding paperwork and other such duties to do with a committee. Quite a lot of options are available here, and it doesn’t have to be anything particularly strenuous or sweeping for member states.

(OOC: I think the simplest thing would probably be to change the "strongly encourages" clause to a requirement. I'm not sure if that would be objectionable though. Perhaps I could specify that it applies to government health programs, not private health organizations.)

Kenmoria wrote:In this clause, I don’t think you need a definition at all. There is only one meaning of syringe, and it is not something that could be misinterpreted by a member nation for any conceivable benefit.)

Fair point, will remove.

OOC: Nicely written first draft.

Sylvai wrote:4. REQUIRES the IHACC to provide financial aid to poorer nations experiencing high levels of disease transmission due to unclean syringe use if they wish to recieve such assistance;

Should the IHACC be in charge of providing financial aid, or would it be more appropriate as the World Assembly General Fund?

Maowi wrote:OOC: Nicely written first draft.

Sylvai wrote:4. REQUIRES the IHACC to provide financial aid to poorer nations experiencing high levels of disease transmission due to unclean syringe use if they wish to recieve such assistance;

Should the IHACC be in charge of providing financial aid, or would it be more appropriate as the World Assembly General Fund?

(OOC: Thank you.)

Perhaps the IHACC could direct the funds and the WAGF provide them? I think it makes sense for the IHACC to coordinate the humanitarian aid aspect since they are made for that. I'll edit to reflect that idea.

OOC: In my understanding the AoE chosen means that the proposal needs to include mechanisms that cause an increase on international aid spending for the member nations, not the WA as a whole. So basically you need to make the member nations waste spend money on international aid.

I would imagine universality between persons living in nations that are rich but unwilling and those that are unable. I would instead require adequate provision as necessary.

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: In my understanding the AoE chosen means that the proposal needs to include mechanisms that cause an increase on international aid spending for the member nations, not the WA as a whole. So basically you need to make the member nations waste spend money on international aid.

OOC: That’s not really the goal of my proposal, unless I can direct member nations to contribute more funds to the WAGF for this purpose. I suppose this would now fall under Healthcare since it is mandating that member nations use safe syringes/providing funds for that purpose. Would that be accurate?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I would imagine universality between persons living in nations that are rich but unwilling and those that are unable. I would instead require adequate provision as necessary.

OOC: Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by that; could you elaborate?

Sylvai wrote:

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: In my understanding the AoE chosen means that the proposal needs to include mechanisms that cause an increase on international aid spending for the member nations, not the WA as a whole. So basically you need to make the member nations waste spend money on international aid.

OOC: That’s not really the goal of my proposal, unless I can direct member nations to contribute more funds to the WAGF for this purpose. I suppose this would now fall under Healthcare since it is mandating that member nations use safe syringes/providing funds for that purpose. Would that be accurate?

OOC: It again comes down to exactly what aspect you want to legislate on. Do you want to insist on cutting down the chance of epidemics and/or disease spread (in which case check the existing resolutions on the topic) with the clean syringe thing, or do you want to ensure that nations that could deal with the problem, do so, while nations that literally can't, get some help, or what? What you exactly want to tackle, dictates what should be the category/AoE or strength, and then the category/AoE or strength dictates what should be involved in the active clauses of the proposal.

But whatever your approach, start off from trying to do everything without a committee. (And WA General Fund counts as a committee.) So basically start by giving the member nations themselves mandates to fulfill, rather than throwing money at some faceless organization. You're supposed to be legislating for the nations, not the organization of the WA.

Also check the existing resolutions on healthcare. They may not be actually in the category "healthcare", because that's not been around from the start. Use search words on the forum thread on this forum.

Potted Plants United wrote:But whatever your approach, start off from trying to do everything without a committee. (And WA General Fund counts as a committee.) So basically start by giving the member nations themselves mandates to fulfill, rather than throwing money at some faceless organization. You're supposed to be legislating for the nations, not the organization of the WA.

I'll rewrite the proposal to prioritize the mandate of clean syringe usage then.

Potted Plants United wrote:Also check the existing resolutions on healthcare. They may not be actually in the category "healthcare", because that's not been around from the start. Use search words on the forum thread on this forum.

Will do.

Sylvai wrote:lI'll rewrite the proposal to prioritize the mandate of clean syringe usage then.

If you do rewrite a second draft, make sure you place the current draft in a spoiler in case you need to refer back to it later.

I decided to whittle things down a lot in this new draft, completely removing the international aid element. I could add it back in but I think this is probably a more appropriate proposal for the GA.

Draft 2:

Health | Healthcare

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

ACKNOWLEDGING the high likelihood of transmitting communicable disease through reused syringes;

AWARE that higher disease transmission rates in any nation place the international community at risk;

BELIEVING that the World Health Authority's Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) are both uniquely equipped to address this problem;

HEREBY

1. DIRECTS the World Health Authority's EPARC to develop international standards for the cleaning of syringes that will adequately disinfect such syringes;

2. COMPELS any government health programs of member nations to follow these international standards or utilize new, sterile syringes when treating illness or disease;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to implement governmental regulation on healthcare industries to ensure these standards are applied to private health programs.

How is it now? Better, worse? Stuff to change? Thanks for the help so far.

Sylvai wrote:I decided to whittle things down a lot in this new draft, completely removing the international aid element. I could add it back in but I think this is probably a more appropriate proposal for the GA.

Draft 2:

Health | Healthcare

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

ACKNOWLEDGING the high likelihood of transmitting communicable disease through reused syringes;

AWARE that higher disease transmission rates in any nation place the international community at risk;

BELIEVING that the World Health Authority's Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) are both uniquely equipped to address this problem;

HEREBY

1. DIRECTS the World Health Authority's EPARC to develop international standards for the cleaning of syringes that will adequately disinfect such syringes;

2. COMPELS any government health programs of member nations to follow these international standards or utilize new, sterile syringes when treating illness or disease;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to implement governmental regulation on healthcare industries to ensure these standards are applied to private health programs.

How is it now? Better, worse? Stuff to change? Thanks for the help so far.

(OOC: Firstly, you should put all new proposals into the first post of the topic, so that people can find them without having to scroll down. Secondly, the ‘compels’ clause should probably apply only to those programs that actually use syringes.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Firstly, you should put all new proposals into the first post of the topic, so that people can find them without having to scroll down.

(OOC: I did do that.)

Kenmoria wrote:Secondly, the ‘compels’ clause should probably apply only to those programs that actually use syringes.)

Good point.

Comments in red.

Sylvai wrote:
Draft 2:
Health | Healthcare

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

ACKNOWLEDGING the high likelihood of transmitting communicable disease through reused syringes;

AWARE that higher disease transmission rates in any nation places the international community at risk;

BELIEVING that the World Health Authority's Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) are both is uniquely equipped to address this problem;

HEREBY

1. DIRECTS the World Health Authority's EPARC to develop international standards for the cleaning of syringes that will adequately disinfect such syringes see the below link;

2. COMPELS any government health programs of member nations to follow these international standards or utilize new, sterile syringes when treating illness or disease with syringes see the below link;

3. ENCOURAGES nations to implement governmental regulation on healthcare industries to ensure these standards are applied to private health programs.

It is never safe to reuse syringes, even sterilized. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/pat ... _faqs.html

Edit: Perhaps, instead of reuse procedures, use discard procedures that the EPARC would regulate.

Terttia wrote:It is never safe to reuse syringes, even sterilized. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/pat ... _faqs.html

Edit: Perhaps, instead of reuse procedures, use discard procedures that the EPARC would regulate.

I will add a provision for EPARC to also create discard procedures; however the CDC notes here: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/fac ... ringes.pdf that cleaning syringes properly significantly reduces the rate of transmittable disease. The CDC even lays out methods to do so. Many nations, businesses, and areas may not have the means to use a different syringe each time, although I agree they absolutely should; however, I would prefer to have individual nations decide whether they should further limit syringe usage to only new syringes rather than deciding that for them.

Edit: I've added the following provision:

c. Determining when a syringe must be discarded;

so that EPARC would have a CDC-like standard for when it's no longer safe to reuse a syringe even after cleaning.

3. ENCOURAGES nations to implement governmental regulation on healthcare industries to ensure these standards are applied to private health programs.

Why not have regulations on all health programs? A private program could be responsible for spreading disease just as easy as a government program.

Terttia wrote:

3. ENCOURAGES nations to implement governmental regulation on healthcare industries to ensure these standards are applied to private health programs.

Why not have regulations on all health programs? A private program could be responsible for spreading disease just as easy as a government program.

I'm worried that that would create unnecessary opposition to the proposal because some states may be laissez-faire or otherwise not wish to regulate private industry in general. Limiting it to governmental health programs while also bringing states to awareness about safe syringe use procedures and encouraging them to regulate private industry as well leaves the option in states' hands. If the proposal were to be voted down based on the regulation bit, it would cause more harm than having something on the books that at least affects a large amount of programs.

What do you think about that?

Sylvai wrote:

Terttia wrote:

3. ENCOURAGES nations to implement governmental regulation on healthcare industries to ensure these standards are applied to private health programs.

Why not have regulations on all health programs? A private program could be responsible for spreading disease just as easy as a government program.

I'm worried that that would create unnecessary opposition to the proposal because some states may be laissez-faire or otherwise not wish to regulate private industry in general. Limiting it to governmental health programs while also bringing states to awareness about safe syringe use procedures and encouraging them to regulate private industry as well leaves the option in states' hands. If the proposal were to be voted down based on the regulation bit, it would cause more harm than having something on the books that at least affects a large amount of programs.

What do you think about that?

A member state could exploit a loophole by privatizing the healthcare sector.

Edit: Being in the WA is a choice, and member states must comply with all legislation it passes, whether they like it or not.

Terttia wrote:A member state could exploit a loophole by privatizing the healthcare sector.

Edit: Being in the WA is a choice, and member states must comply with all legislation it passes, whether they like it or not.

I suppose you have a point. I'd like to hear other thoughts on this matter though before I consider amending the proposal to regulate private industry. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?