NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Ban on the Administration of Unwanted Substances

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

[PASSED] Ban on the Administration of Unwanted Substances

Postby Morover » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:30 pm

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.
Last edited by Ransium on Wed May 06, 2020 9:14 am, edited 15 times in total.

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Cosmosplosion
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Jun 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Cosmosplosion » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:34 pm

"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."
Former Minister of World Assembly Affairs - The North Pacific
Former WA Delegate - The Versutian Federation
Author of GAR #459 - On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes
I don't care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting. - Che Guevara


Economic Left/Right: -7.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67

User avatar
Cisairse
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10895
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cisairse » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:39 pm

Assuming the-powers-that-be rule this to be an admissible proposal, I am in favor of it.
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

I officially endorse Fivey Fox for president of the United States.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:40 pm

Cosmosplosion wrote:"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 you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Cosmosplosion
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Jun 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Cosmosplosion » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:45 pm

Morover wrote:
Cosmosplosion wrote:"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."
Former Minister of World Assembly Affairs - The North Pacific
Former WA Delegate - The Versutian Federation
Author of GAR #459 - On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes
I don't care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting. - Che Guevara


Economic Left/Right: -7.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8007
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:47 pm

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?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:51 pm

Tinhampton wrote: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."

Cosmosplosion wrote:
Morover wrote:"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."

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Cisairse
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10895
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cisairse » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:52 pm

Cosmosplosion wrote:
Morover wrote:"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."
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

I officially endorse Fivey Fox for president of the United States.

User avatar
Charax
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1006
Founded: Apr 20, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Charax » Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:34 pm

Morover wrote:
  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.
Minister of WA Affairs, Balder
◆◆◆

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:00 pm

Charax wrote:
Morover wrote:
  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.

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15445
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:57 am

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).
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:59 am

Araraukar wrote: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.

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:19 am

OOC: Bumping this.

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:46 am

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.

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1165
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:52 am

Morover wrote:
  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!

    Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
    Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

    Factbooks

    User avatar
    Morover
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1140
    Founded: Oct 14, 2018
    Libertarian Police State

    Postby Morover » Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:32 am

    Maowi wrote:
    Morover wrote:
    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.

    If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
    Email Me


    User avatar
    Morover
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1140
    Founded: Oct 14, 2018
    Libertarian Police State

    Postby Morover » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:54 pm

    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.

    If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
    Email Me


    User avatar
    Imperium Anglorum
    Postmaster-General
     
    Posts: 10303
    Founded: Aug 26, 2013
    Left-Leaning College State

    Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:58 pm

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

    Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
    Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
    Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
    Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
    Delegate for Europe
    Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
    Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
    Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

    User avatar
    Morover
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1140
    Founded: Oct 14, 2018
    Libertarian Police State

    Postby Morover » Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:09 pm

    Imperium Anglorum wrote:"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.

    If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
    Email Me


    User avatar
    Kenmoria
    Negotiator
     
    Posts: 6529
    Founded: Jul 03, 2017
    Corporate Bordello

    Postby Kenmoria » Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:22 pm

    “Clause 1 would read better if there were an ‘an’ after ‘for the purposes of this resolution’.”
    A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
    Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
    Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
    NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
    Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
    This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
    However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
    Current ambassador: James Lewitt

    For more information, read the factbooks here.

    User avatar
    Maowi
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1165
    Founded: Jan 07, 2019
    Civil Rights Lovefest

    Postby Maowi » Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:53 pm

    Morover wrote: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.

    Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
    Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

    Factbooks

    User avatar
    Morover
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1140
    Founded: Oct 14, 2018
    Libertarian Police State

    Postby Morover » Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:03 pm

    OOC: Fixed both of the above complaints.

    If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
    Email Me


    User avatar
    Wallenburg
    Postmaster of the Fleet
     
    Posts: 21122
    Founded: Jan 30, 2015
    Democratic Socialists

    Postby Wallenburg » Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:16 pm

    Clause IV of the Patient's Rights Act seems to cover all of this and more.
    In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
    grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
    Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

    Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

    User avatar
    Morover
    Ambassador
     
    Posts: 1140
    Founded: Oct 14, 2018
    Libertarian Police State

    Postby Morover » Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:35 pm

    Wallenburg wrote: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.

    If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
    Email Me


    User avatar
    Wallenburg
    Postmaster of the Fleet
     
    Posts: 21122
    Founded: Jan 30, 2015
    Democratic Socialists

    Postby Wallenburg » Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:39 pm

    Morover wrote:
    Wallenburg wrote: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?
    In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
    grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
    Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

    Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

    Next

    Advertisement

    Remove ads

    Return to WA Archives

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users

    Advertisement

    Remove ads