[PASSED] Ban on the Administration of Unwanted Substances

[Morover]

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?

Well, presumably, the implication in GAR#29 is that treatments are medical treatments, and the intention here is much broader (though, I will admit that the administration of medically necessary drugs was technically included here, though I feel that it's a relative nonissue). Let me know if I'm misinterpreting GAR#29, it's totally possible.

[Morover]

OOC:

This has been submitted.

[Wallenburg]

This is now at Vote.

[Outer Bele Levy Epies]

I voted against because "humane death".

[Morover]

I voted against because "humane death".

"Is it not preferable for capital punishment to be humane where it is present? I am all for the abolishment of capital punishment, and this proposal would allow for that - but, in the meantime, it is righteous to ensure that the capital punishment that does happen is done so in a manner that is not cruel."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps the OP should clarify what category it was submitted under? So that it conforms with what shows up in the gameside system.

[Costa Diamante]

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

As a general assembly, it is better to "affirm" a right than to believe in it... that said, I am unaware of any "right to full bodily autonomy" passed by the present WA body, so it doesn't make sure to believe or affirm any right not recognized by the WA at large...

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,

superfluous statements that add no meat to the operative clauses...

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;

A pouting child can be protected against being forced to eat his/her vegetables by this legislation.

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:
[*]the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;
[*]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;
[*]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;

You have just conveniently invalidated *every* possible intent for the bans of consumption of "undesirable substances".

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

This clarification does not clarify anything?

A República Democrática da Costa Diamante votamos "não" à atual resolução. Esta resolução propõe proteger as pessoas contra medicamentos involuntários, mas oferece exceções às proteções que as invalidam.

[Morover]

All OOC because I don't know how to respond IC:

As a general assembly, it is better to "affirm" a right than to believe in it... that said, I am unaware of any "right to full bodily autonomy" passed by the present WA body, so it doesn't make sure to believe or affirm any right not recognized by the WA at large...

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.

superfluous statements that add no meat to the operative clauses...

Well they are preambulatory?

A pouting child can be protected against being forced to eat his/her vegetables by this legislation.

Maybe if that child is of legal competence - but your nation has some other more pressing issues if that's so.

You have just conveniently invalidated *every* possible intent for the bans of consumption of "undesirable substances".

Either I'm having a stroke or this makes no sense.

This clarification does not clarify anything?

Yes it does, actually.

OOC: Perhaps the OP should clarify what category it was submitted under? So that it conforms with what shows up in the gameside system.

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out.

[Founding convervative fathers]

This proposal goes against the principle of state sovereignty. States have the right to choose the pain inflicted on people who don't respect law of their countries (this for serious crimes). As a sovereign state, we oppose it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

EMW: Our concerns are related to the involuntary medication of what ought to be medical patients to make them appear sane enough to stand trial. This is not excepted for in the proposal at vote. (OOC, see generally https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7914440, https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/ ... defendants, http://jaapl.org/content/36/4/583.)

[Morover]

EMW: Our concerns are related to the involuntary medication of what ought to be medical patients to make them appear sane enough to stand trial. This is not excepted for in the proposal at vote. (OOC, see generally https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7914440, https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/ ... defendants, http://jaapl.org/content/36/4/583.)

"If I understand correctly, you wish for an exception to be made for less-than-competent individuals (i.e. those who are not of sound mind) who are to go on trial, in order to make them competent enough to stand trial in a reasonable manner?"

"Now, assuming I do correctly understand you, I think that the argument would be made that such an individual is not of legal competence, and as such, would not be subjected to clause two of this proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong."

[Imperium Anglorum]

EMW: I wish for it to be impermissible to give anti-psychotics to people who ought to be adjudged incompetent—and so appear at the time—so that they appear competent during trial.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: So, if I am reading 2(d) correctly, this resolution is actually authorizing forced vaccination?

Additionally -- although I doubt it matters since my reading of 2(d) is pretty much already a dealbreaker -- why is the remit of Clause 2 limited to persons of "legal competence"? Because persons not of legal competence should not be administered unwanted substances altogether, or because it simply doesn't matter if such persons want a drug or not, because it's for the good of society?

Against.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: So, if I am reading 2(d) correctly, this resolution is actually authorizing forced vaccination?

Additionally -- although I doubt it matters since my reading of 2(d) is pretty much already a dealbreaker -- why is the remit of Clause 2 limited to persons of "legal competence"? Because persons not of legal competence should not be administered unwanted substances altogether, or because it simply doesn't matter if such persons want a drug or not, because it's for the good of society?

Against.

(OOC: If the proposal banned forced vaccinations, then it would have been illegal for contradiction with the Public Health and Vaccinations Act.)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There is a difference between mandatory vaccinations and forced vaccinations. This resolution specifically regulates the administration of unwanted substances, meaning governments can actually require that unwanted substances be given to individuals against their will. Such a remedy is never mentioned in GA#412.

[Upcrus]

I have to agree. 2(d) reads as if Governments will have the authority to mandate injections if they deem it necessary for public health. I believe that to be opening a door for government exploitation and abuse of the people.

[Kenmoria]

There is a difference between mandatory vaccinations and forced vaccinations. This resolution specifically regulates the administration of unwanted substances, meaning governments can actually require that unwanted substances be given to individuals against their will. Such a remedy is never mentioned in GA#412.

(OOC: I don’t see that there is such a difference between the two. If vaccinations are mandatory, and somebody refuses, then a forced vaccination seems to be the only remedy.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Perhaps this is a slight issue with ambiguity of phrasing in the proposal, but I don't read 2.d. as mandating anything. I'm seeing it as functionally saying "the World Assembly bans the administration of undesirable substances [etc. etc.] except in the circumstance in which substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered," etc. So the "substances deemed necessary must be administered" is describing a potential situation rather than enacting a mandate.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

Several remedies (i.e., penalties for those who refuse) are mentioned in GA#412; forced vaccinations is not one of them. If you honestly don't know the difference between "mandatory" and "forced," there are a number of online dictionaries readily at your disposal that can explain.


EDIT@Maowi: I never said the resolution was mandating forced vaccinations; I said it is "authorizing" them.

[Maowi]

EDIT@Maowi: I never said the resolution was mandating forced vaccinations; I said it "authorizes" them.

OOC: Oh yep, my bad for misreading there. However, I don't think leaving an exception there for it actively authorises it; it just refrains from covering the issue. I guess future legislation could still deal with that without any contradiction problems.

[Kenmoria]

*snip*

Several remedies (i.e., penalties for those who refuse) are mentioned in GA#412; forced vaccinations is not one of them. If you honestly don't know the difference between "mandatory" and "forced," there are a number of online dictionaries readily at your disposal that can explain.

(OOC: Penalties for those who refuse work fine, until there are people who so rabidly believe in conspiracy theories that any proportionate penalty, i.e. prison time or rapidly increasing fines, won’t work. There’s a limit to how extreme punishments can get, and it seems far more cost-effective and safer (in terms of limiting the time the unvaccinated individual can contract the disease) to employ forced vaccinations.)

[Christian Democrats]

Stop the commies from polluting our precious bodily fluids!

[Heavens Reach]

I agree with the author. The death penalty, while abhorrent, is beyond the scope of the proposed legislation. Those opposed to the death penalty should consider writing a proposal to the WA that prohibits it.

[Heavens Reach]

There is a difference between mandatory vaccinations and forced vaccinations. This resolution specifically regulates the administration of unwanted substances, meaning governments can actually require that unwanted substances be given to individuals against their will. Such a remedy is never mentioned in GA#412.

It doesn't permit forced vaccinations; it simply doesn't prohibit them. They have been identified as being beyond the scope of legislation, like the death penalty.

[Typica]

Stop the commies from polluting our precious bodily fluids!

You mean "stealing". We must stop those commies from "stealing our precious bodily fluids."

Edit: oh wow, I've had it wrong for years.. dang it