[PASSED] Ban on the Administration of Unwanted Substances

[Federation of the Astral Plane]

Our government's primary concern with this bill regards the consideration of chemical castration as a punishment as well as certain treatments for mental conditions which will then exist in a grey area created by this law. Without clarification regarding such edge cases, my government cannot support this law, due to real possibility of litigation.

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

What if you have a mentally unstable patient or patients at a mental ward? Anything that isn't related to sedating them cannot be given? Or that anyone who is at risk for harming themselves and others can be given any kind of medication? Lack of clarity in the text.

Also leaves out people with other mental illness that don't involve risk of harm but need those medications.

And then it allows doctors to force antivaxxers to get vaccinated?

[Demonos]

Clarification Requested:

SEC 2.(d) "...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;"

Who is to judge that necessity?

What if "skeptics" have a reasonable and qualifiable objection based on fact? Either way, "even if there are skeptics", this section opens a loophole for potential totalitarian misuse.

Why should Demonos vote for this flawed proposal?

[Christian Democrats]

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

At any rate, this proposal would protect individuals from evils like fluoridated drinking water.

The people's precious bodily fluids will remain secure and uncontaminated!

[Kenmoria]

What if you have a mentally unstable patient or patients at a mental ward? Anything that isn't related to sedating them cannot be given? Or that anyone who is at risk for harming themselves and others can be given any kind of medication? Lack of clarity in the text.

(OOC: Mentally ill patients wouldn’t be covered under the legislation, which only applies to sapient beings of legal competence.)

[The land between the Prut and the Nistru]

Point 2, subsection d):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

My question is: deemed necessary by whom?
If you do not clarify that,the entire resolution is pointless.

[Raegis]

If this assembly is to act in the best interest of its member nations and their people, then it must take steps to ensure said member nations are not infringing on such autonomy, which has no benefit beyond the enjoyment of cruel masters. The Witan of Saexia approves of this legislation, in the name of individual freedom across the WA.

[Kenmoria]

Point 2, subsection d):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

My question is: deemed necessary by whom?
If you do not clarify that,the entire resolution is pointless.

(OOC: That would be deemed necessary by the reasonable interpretation of the member state in question. Although the wording is ambiguous, it would be hard to clarify and doesn’t scuttle the entire proposal, in my view.)

[Garialdi]

"The people's of Garialdi do feel inclined to accepting the proposal, however we feel a needed clause is missing. We'd have to ask what happens in the case of mental illnesses and deficiencies, is the patient able to deny needed and important medical care? Is a suicidal patient able to ask for his own death by not accepting any treatments? We believe the proposal NEEDS to include situations in which the patients can express themselves but are not able to take reasonable decisions. Besides that, if the proposal aludes these cases as no legally ration, ot opens up a precedent for allowing dictatorships to determine that citizens that do not follow medical recommendations are not capable of taking a decision, effectively rendering it Null. If this is fixed, we'd vote FOR the proposal. But as is, we cannot approve of it."

[Kenmoria]

Our government's primary concern with this bill regards the consideration of chemical castration as a punishment as well as certain treatments for mental conditions which will then exist in a grey area created by this law. Without clarification regarding such edge cases, my government cannot support this law, due to real possibility of litigation.

“Your first concern has already been settled by extant law. Preventing Forced Sterilisations bans involuntary chemical castrations, so this proposal wouldn’t be allowed to enable them.”

[Magnaebellan Foreign Embassy]

I do wish this bill didn't attempt to govern treatment of those sentenced to execution. If one has committed actions severe enough to warrant death, then one does not warrant any humane considerations. What's warranted is doing as much as possible to provide reparations for the victims, and the suffering of the perpetrator is a good place to start. Might support this bill otherwise.

[Astrobolt]

I do wish this bill didn't attempt to govern treatment of those sentenced to execution. If one has committed actions severe enough to warrant death, then one does not warrant any humane considerations. What's warranted is doing as much as possible to provide reparations for the victims, and the suffering of the perpetrator is a good place to start. Might support this bill otherwise.

"Ambassador, your problem then isn't with this resolution. GA #443, Preventing the Execution of Innocents, already forces governments to execute people in a humane way. It forces governments to carry out capital punishment in a way which is "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering".

[Ardiveds]

Point 2, subsection d):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

My question is: deemed necessary by whom?
If you do not clarify that,the entire resolution is pointless.

(OOC: That would be deemed necessary by the reasonable interpretation of the member state in question. Although the wording is ambiguous, it would be hard to clarify and doesn’t scuttle the entire proposal, in my view.)

OOC: So if an authoritarian government deems mind control drugs to be essestial for the nation's health, it would be free to forcefully administer them to its people under this resolution? I feel like this resolution helps in the administration of unwanted substances as much as it bans it

[Aclion]

(OOC: That would be deemed necessary by the reasonable interpretation of the member state in question. Although the wording is ambiguous, it would be hard to clarify and doesn’t scuttle the entire proposal, in my view.)

OOC: So if an authoritarian government deems mind control drugs to be essestial for the nation's health, it would be free to forcefully administer them to its people under this resolution? I feel like this resolution helps in the administration of unwanted substances as much as it bans it

pretty sure that would violate existing wa law.

[Necosia]

against, i want muh drugs

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: That would be deemed necessary by the reasonable interpretation of the member state in question. Although the wording is ambiguous, it would be hard to clarify and doesn’t scuttle the entire proposal, in my view.)

OOC: So if an authoritarian government deems mind control drugs to be essestial for the nation's health, it would be free to forcefully administer them to its people under this resolution? I feel like this resolution helps in the administration of unwanted substances as much as it bans it

(OOC: That would not be reasonable interpretation of what constitutes a benefit to public health.)

[Ardiveds]

OOC: So if an authoritarian government deems mind control drugs to be essestial for the nation's health, it would be free to forcefully administer them to its people under this resolution? I feel like this resolution helps in the administration of unwanted substances as much as it bans it

(OOC: That would not be reasonable interpretation of what constitutes a benefit to public health.)

Well an obedient and compliant population can make crime rates go down, and the government can make everybody take up healthier lifestyles, improving health... I know I'm stretching the possible interpretation a bit but the that clause just sounds somewhat sketchy to me

[Nollaa]

Due to recent mentions we decided to change our vote completely in favor of the resolution.

The United States of Nollaa completely support this, and will always vote for the protection of innocent humans, and hope to see more of these in the future of WA resolutions.

[Astrobolt]

We are very happy to see such a proposal and mostly agree with the proposal on the issue at hand, however while we are still voting yes on this issue, we would like clarification on if this proclamation is intended to act as an early form of banning capital punishment, as it seems to put many limitations of capital punishment and the means which capital punishment can be conducted under certain countries laws, for example, it seems many countries might resort to older forms of capital punishment to avoid the costs of having to switch over all programs to comply with clause 2c.

"Ambassador, your problem then isn't with this resolution. GA #443, Preventing the Execution of Innocents, already forces governments to execute people in a humane way. It forces governments to carry out capital punishment in a way which is "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering".

[Mylusch]

In this proposal, I do not see any element that allows, say, a parent or guardian, to give consent for a child to receive a substance. If the child does not wish to get a shot, as most children don't, would the parents consent be the deciding factor here? Is this assumed? Can the ability to consent be signed over to, for example, a family member?

[Astrobolt]

In this proposal, I do not see any element that allows, say, a parent or guardian, to give consent for a child to receive a substance. If the child does not wish to get a shot, as most children don't, would the parents consent be the deciding factor here? Is this assumed? Can the ability to consent be signed over to, for example, a family member?

"The proposal address sapients of legal competence. A child would not meet the definition of legal competence."

[Camellias]

"With regards to human life, the Democratic Whimsical Republic of the Camellias is in unanimous approval of this resolution. It is fundamental to our ideology that all sentient life have control over their own bodies - with few exceptions .

[Picairn]

"The Empire of Picairn today has voiced its near-unanimous approval in Parliament (with 693-7 in the House of Representatives and 486-14 in the House of Lords), although it shares the same concerns with other nations regarding the vague meaning of the words which could be open to abuse. The Prime Minister recommends that a follow-up clarification should be made."

[Mallorea and Riva]

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;

Does this wording prevent a police force from pepper spraying unruly protesters or criminals?

[The New Sicilian State]

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;

Does this wording prevent a police force from pepper spraying unruly protesters or criminals?

“I’m not too sure, screaming while covering your eyes in a fetal position on the ground doesn’t seem like sedated to me, ambassador.”