[PASSED] Ban on the Administration of Unwanted Substances

[Morover]

Regulation - Safety

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual to whom it is being administered;
2. Subject to other World Assembly Legislation, bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not freely consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. the individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. the undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to induce a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary shall be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

OOC: If it's not clear, this is a continuation of my old discarded proposal, Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs.

Feedback appreciated.

Drafts:

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which it is being administered to;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances unto any sapient individual who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. a patient which is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. in cases of capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, no adverse effects should be administered other than those deemed absolutely necessary.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which it is being administered to;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. a patient which is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. in cases of capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary should be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which it is being administered to;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. a patient which is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. in cases of capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary should be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual to whom it is being administered;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not freely consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. the individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
      [*the undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to induce a humane death;
   3. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary should be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual to whom it is being administered;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not freely consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. the individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. the undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to induce a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary shall be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual to whom it is being administered;
2. Subject to other World Assembly Legislation, bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not freely consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. the individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. the undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to induce a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary shall be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

[Cosmosplosion]

"Opposed, although not strictly on the principle of the legislation. Our World Assembly Ministry here in Cosmosplosion cannot, in good faith, reconcile our moral code with Part C of Active Clause 2. The death penalty, and any proposal that explicitly allows such punishment, will not receive the approval of our nation."

[Cisairse]

Assuming the-powers-that-be rule this to be an admissible proposal, I am in favor of it.

[Morover]

"Opposed, although not strictly on the principle of the legislation. Our World Assembly Ministry here in Cosmosplosion cannot, in good faith, reconcile our moral code with Part C of Active Clause 2. The death penalty, and any proposal that explicitly allows such punishment, will not receive the approval of our nation."

"Though perhaps it is poorly worded, the intention of the subclause was not to explicitly permit capital punishment (OOC: I don't believe it does? Though I may be biased on the subject), but rather to ensure that in nations where capital punishment is permitted, due to there not being an adequate ban, that it is done so in a way that is not painful. We're not seeking to explicitly allow capital punishment - but we are not aiming to outlaw it in this proposal, either."

[Cosmosplosion]

"Opposed, although not strictly on the principle of the legislation. Our World Assembly Ministry here in Cosmosplosion cannot, in good faith, reconcile our moral code with Part C of Active Clause 2. The death penalty, and any proposal that explicitly allows such punishment, will not receive the approval of our nation."

"Though perhaps it is poorly worded, the intention of the subclause was not to explicitly permit capital punishment (OOC: I don't believe it does? Though I may be biased on the subject), but rather to ensure that in nations where capital punishment is permitted, due to there not being an adequate ban, that it is done so in a way that is not painful. We're not seeking to explicitly allow capital punishment - but we are not aiming to outlaw it in this proposal, either."

"If any nation has invented a truly painless, physically and mentally, way to execute people, we would love to see it, as it would be new to us. And sure, while it doesn't explicitly permit capital punishment, it does make it okay as long as it is "non-painful" physically, and we would posit that every prisoner who has been executed has went through levels of mental punishment leading up to said execution that none of us could ever truly understand."

[Tinhampton]

Should it be assumed that Article 2d would expand the principle of GA#412, Article 1, to include (for instance) anti-viral drugs that are effective against a particular virus-borne disease where no vaccine for that disease is available?

[Morover]

Should it be assumed that Article 2d would expand the principle of GA#412, Article 1, to include (for instance) anti-viral drugs that are effective against a particular virus-borne disease where no vaccine for that disease is available?

"Theoretically, yes, provided that is was deemed necessary for the public health."

"Though perhaps it is poorly worded, the intention of the subclause was not to explicitly permit capital punishment (OOC: I don't believe it does? Though I may be biased on the subject), but rather to ensure that in nations where capital punishment is permitted, due to there not being an adequate ban, that it is done so in a way that is not painful. We're not seeking to explicitly allow capital punishment - but we are not aiming to outlaw it in this proposal, either."

"If any nation has invented a truly painless, physically and mentally, way to execute people, we would love to see it, as it would be new to us. And sure, while it doesn't explicitly permit capital punishment, it does make it okay as long as it is "non-painful" physically, and we would posit that every prisoner who has been executed has went through levels of mental punishment leading up to said execution that none of us could ever truly understand."

"While I understand your opposition to such capital punishment, and even share in it, I feel that it is not suited for this proposal. I would love to see an explicit ban to capital punishment myself, and I feel it is something to work towards, but I don't quite understand why it merits opposition to the proposal at hand."

[Cisairse]

"Though perhaps it is poorly worded, the intention of the subclause was not to explicitly permit capital punishment (OOC: I don't believe it does? Though I may be biased on the subject), but rather to ensure that in nations where capital punishment is permitted, due to there not being an adequate ban, that it is done so in a way that is not painful. We're not seeking to explicitly allow capital punishment - but we are not aiming to outlaw it in this proposal, either."

"If any nation has invented a truly painless, physically and mentally, way to execute people, we would love to see it, as it would be new to us. And sure, while it doesn't explicitly permit capital punishment, it does make it okay as long as it is "non-painful" physically, and we would posit that every prisoner who has been executed has went through levels of mental punishment leading up to said execution that none of us could ever truly understand."

"This proposal, as far as I can read, does not take a pro-capital-punishment stance. It merely places restrictions on capital punishments for nations which do carry them out. Current World Assembly legislation, to my knowledge, permits capital punishment in all cases. This proposal does not reinforce that status, nor would it make outlawing capital punishment more difficult.

In fact, Clause 2(c) of this resolution is entirely non-operative were it passed right now, as GAR #443 contains even stronger language."

[Charax]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which it is being administered to;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances unto any sapient individual who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. a patient which is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. in cases of capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, no adverse effects should be administered other than those deemed absolutely necessary.

[/box]

A couple of things:

1. I believe you mean "bans the administration of undesirable substances into any sapient individual
2. I would personally go with prohibits over "bans", but that might just be that I like ornate language for its own sake
3. The final point is a little clunkily worded. This isn't perfect, but I would offer Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, medical practitioners may not induce any more adverse effects in patients than absolutely necessary as a potential jumping-off point for that.

I think this is a good proposal and I'll vote for it if it's ruled legal and makes it through the editing process more-or-less intact.

[Morover]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which it is being administered to;
2. Bans the administration of undesirable substances unto any sapient individual who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:
   
   1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
   2. a patient which is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;
   3. in cases of capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke a humane death;
   4. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;
3. Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, no adverse effects should be administered other than those deemed absolutely necessary.

[/box]

A couple of things:

1. I believe you mean "bans the administration of undesirable substances into any sapient individual
2. I would personally go with prohibits over "bans", but that might just be that I like ornate language for its own sake
3. The final point is a little clunkily worded. This isn't perfect, but I would offer Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, medical practitioners may not induce any more adverse effects in patients than absolutely necessary as a potential jumping-off point for that.

I think this is a good proposal and I'll vote for it if it's ruled legal and makes it through the editing process more-or-less intact.

OOC: Fixing 1 and 3, 2 I see as a nonissue.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 1 should have something about legal competence in it, so that children can be "forced" (or cajoled or coerced or whatever) to take medications that they don't want to take (because they taste bad or whatever) but which they need to take for their own health's sake (like, say, antibiotics).

[Morover]

OOC: Clause 1 should have something about legal competence in it, so that children can be "forced" (or cajoled or coerced or whatever) to take medications that they don't want to take (because they taste bad or whatever) but which they need to take for their own health's sake (like, say, antibiotics).

OOC: Fixed, thanks.

[Morover]

OOC: Bumping this.

[Morover]

OOC:

Sorry for the undesirable triple post, but I'd like to say that due to general lack of feedback (which I presume means it has at least a decent standard of quality), this will be submitted in three weeks, on April 25, unless any substantive critiques which are unfixable in the given time frame are brought to light.

[Maowi]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which to whom it is being administered to;

OOC: Just some grammatical suggestions there to clean up the language.

Bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:

"Although a minor detail, I suggest adding "freely" before "consented", to eliminate the possibility of people being threatened in order to obtain their "consent"."

1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
2. a patient whichthe individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where and consent is not able to be received;
3. in cases ofthe undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, in which case lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke induce a humane death;

OOC: Those suggestions in part b) are for consistency with part a) and with the phrasing of the main clause those are sub-clauses of. With that in mind, the way part c) is currently written sounds like these undesirable substances may only be used where national laws already require non-painful doses and a humane death. That's not that different to what I assume you're going for and would probably be interpreted correctly anyway, but it does feel kinda strange to read so I suggested an alternative. (Also, "invoke" means "call upon" [e.g. evil spirits, or it's used to mean referring to a source in a document or something] so maybe use "induce" or "cause" or "lead to" or something.)

Anyway, those are all tiny things so I'm fully in support!

[Morover]

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, in which its whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual in which to whom it is being administered to;

OOC: Just some grammatical suggestions there to clean up the language.

Bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:

"Although a minor detail, I suggest adding "freely" before "consented", to eliminate the possibility of people being threatened in order to obtain their "consent"."

1. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
2. a patient whichthe individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where and consent is not able to be received;
3. in cases ofthe undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, in which case lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to invoke induce a humane death;

OOC: Those suggestions in part b) are for consistency with part a) and with the phrasing of the main clause those are sub-clauses of. With that in mind, the way part c) is currently written sounds like these undesirable substances may only be used where national laws already require non-painful doses and a humane death. That's not that different to what I assume you're going for and would probably be interpreted correctly anyway, but it does feel kinda strange to read so I suggested an alternative. (Also, "invoke" means "call upon" [e.g. evil spirits, or it's used to mean referring to a source in a document or something] so maybe use "induce" or "cause" or "lead to" or something.)

Anyway, those are all tiny things so I'm fully in support!

OOC: All fixed! And welcome back. Good to see you again.

[Morover]

OOC: Just a reminder that this will be submitted in nine days. If there have been no more comments, I will bump again when we're three days out as a final call.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Undesirable Substances" is vague unto meaningless. I doubt it would be a good title choice.

[Morover]

"Undesirable Substances" is vague unto meaningless. I doubt it would be a good title choice.

OOC:

I switched the title from "undesirable" to "unwanted", which I assume still isn't ideal, but it's the best I could come up with for the time being. I'll think more about it.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 1 would read better if there were an ‘an’ after ‘for the purposes of this resolution’.”

[Maowi]

Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary should be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.

OOC: Is this supposed to be binding or an "urges..."-type thing? If you were going for the former, "should" is probably not the best choice of language, as its force seems ambiguous to me.

[Morover]

OOC: Fixed both of the above complaints.

[Wallenburg]

Clause IV of the Patient's Rights Act seems to cover all of this and more.

[Morover]

Clause IV of the Patient's Rights Act seems to cover all of this and more.

OOC: I'd argue that "treatments" are different from "administrations", if that makes any sense.

Nevertheless, to prevent substantive overlap, I'll include some wording that should solve the issue.

[Wallenburg]

Clause IV of the Patient's Rights Act seems to cover all of this and more.

OOC: I'd argue that "treatments" are different from "administrations", if that makes any sense.

Nevertheless, to prevent substantive overlap, I'll include some wording that should solve the issue.

What difference is there?