[DISCARDED] Psychiatric Care Act

[Kenmoria]

Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.

"I don't think this protects patients nearly as much as you think. It's arguable that most if not all patients at MHFs are not able to give legal consent, thereby this provision does next to nothing."

“The clause said ‘agree’, not ‘consent’, ambassador. I would argue that, whereas ‘consent’ is a legal term, ‘agree’ is not. Additionally, if an interpretation of a clause renders it entirely void of effect, common sense would dictate that the interpretation is in bad faith. Your concerns about prisoners are more troubling, but they do not, in my view, invalidate the provisions which this proposal makes for the majority of nations’ populations.”

[Heidgaudr]

"I don't think this protects patients nearly as much as you think. It's arguable that most if not all patients at MHFs are not able to give legal consent, thereby this provision does next to nothing."

“The clause said ‘agree’, not ‘consent’, ambassador. I would argue that, whereas ‘consent’ is a legal term, ‘agree’ is not. Additionally, if an interpretation of a clause renders it entirely void of effect, common sense would dictate that the interpretation is in bad faith. Your concerns about prisoners are more troubling, but they do not, in my view, invalidate the provisions which this proposal makes for the majority of nations’ populations.”

"I don't see there being a meaningful difference between 'agree' and 'consent' in this context. If a nation - or the administrators of a single MHF - wish to target an individual, they can simply deem them sufficiently incompetent to be able to agree to anything. It's a colorable and legitimate interpretation in our delegation's opinion."

[Kenmoria]

“The clause said ‘agree’, not ‘consent’, ambassador. I would argue that, whereas ‘consent’ is a legal term, ‘agree’ is not. Additionally, if an interpretation of a clause renders it entirely void of effect, common sense would dictate that the interpretation is in bad faith. Your concerns about prisoners are more troubling, but they do not, in my view, invalidate the provisions which this proposal makes for the majority of nations’ populations.”

"I don't see there being a meaningful difference between 'agree' and 'consent' in this context. If a nation - or the administrators of a single MHF - wish to target an individual, they can simply deem them sufficiently incompetent to be able to agree to anything. It's a colorable and legitimate interpretation in our delegation's opinion."

Lewitt pauses for a few moments. “Upon reflection, I concur with your judgement. I am not quite sure how it would be addressed, but the proposal’s wording does leave open an undesirable loophole. I will take this into account in my judgement.”

[Simone Republic]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=513405&hilit=psychiatric

See my discord comments and my previous comments on the draft

[GirlyPopsAsf]

I believe that the Psychiatric Care Act is quite a progressive act, one that has its fair share of pros and cons. The bigger picture does allow for this act to be taken accordingly and can do more good than harm. Which is a great thing in looking at the world from a nicer point of view.

[Nunaqujjuk]

Against

[Jedinsto]

Against

L

[Nunaqujjuk]

Against

L

And im allowed to say if I'm against, this forum is not a place for memes.

[Jedinsto]

L

And im allowed to say if I'm against, this forum is not a place for memes.

[Juansonia]

"I don't see there being a meaningful difference between 'agree' and 'consent' in this context. If a nation - or the administrators of a single MHF - wish to target an individual, they can simply deem them sufficiently incompetent to be able to agree to anything. It's a colorable and legitimate interpretation in our delegation's opinion."

Lewitt pauses for a few moments. “Upon reflection, I concur with your judgement. I am not quite sure how it would be addressed, but the proposal’s wording does leave open an undesirable loophole. I will take this into account in my judgement.”

"Many nations recognise Power of Attorney or an equivelant means for someone to appoint someone as legally able to consent on another's behalf."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: I'd like to not that:

'Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses'

Only applies to those convicted of offences, and not anyone charged with a crime, thus still giving all sorts of rabble rousers/admirals with the nuclear launch codes an opportunity to leak all the data they have in the long time between being charged and being trialed during their incarceration, mostly defeating the purpose of the repeal. Also, denying all mentally ill criminals the right to all the other stuff (including a pleasant atmosphere) in a mental facility is too far even for us. Show some humanity, dude. You can trust me, I'm a doctor.

[Jedinsto]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: I'd like to not that:

'Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses'

Only applies to those convicted of offences, and not anyone charged with a crime, thus still giving all sorts of rabble rousers/admirals with the nuclear launch codes an opportunity to leak all the data they have in the long time between being charged and being trialed during their incarceration, mostly defeating the purpose of the repeal. Also, denying all mentally ill criminals the right to all the other stuff (including a pleasant atmosphere) in a mental facility is too far even for us. Show some humanity, dude. You can trust me, I'm a doctor.

That exception was included solely to get this to pass. Don't worry, I or one of my region mates is going to write something regarding the criminally insane.

Edit: Also, that clause does not require those protections are not given to criminally insane people, it simply doesn't require that they are, if that makes any sense.

[Heidgaudr]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: I'd like to not that:

'Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses'

Only applies to those convicted of offences, and not anyone charged with a crime, thus still giving all sorts of rabble rousers/admirals with the nuclear launch codes an opportunity to leak all the data they have in the long time between being charged and being trialed during their incarceration, mostly defeating the purpose of the repeal. Also, denying all mentally ill criminals the right to all the other stuff (including a pleasant atmosphere) in a mental facility is too far even for us. Show some humanity, dude. You can trust me, I'm a doctor.

That exception was included solely to get this to pass. Don't worry, I or one of my region mates is going to write something regarding the criminally insane.

Edit: Also, that clause does not require those protections are not given to criminally insane people, it simply doesn't require that they are, if that makes any sense.

Yes, it allows Nurse Ratched to deny key parts of healthcare to anybody convicted of a criminal offense - even if it happened years ago and is wholly unrelated to why the patient is in the MHF in the first place. It's a bad provision and should be reason enough to vote against. If the tinpot dictator says it's inhumane, you know you fucked up.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Yes, it allows Nurse Ratched to deny care to anybody convicted of a criminal offense - even if it happened years ago and is wholly unrelated to why the patient is in the MHF in the first place. It's a bad provision and should be reason enough to vote against. If the tinpot dictator says it's inhumane, you know you fucked up.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, as he puts his nerd glasses on: Actually I'm not the dictator. I'm just following orders. And for the record, President Barack Obama may be a dictator (in the sense that he dictates great lifestyles and moral codes for our people to follow) but he is no way tinpot. He is a giant pot. He is the potty. He is the whole cauldron and the beef stew. Please research your facts.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: I'd like to not that:

'Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses'

Only applies to those convicted of offences, and not anyone charged with a crime, thus still giving all sorts of rabble rousers/admirals with the nuclear launch codes an opportunity to leak all the data they have in the long time between being charged and being trialed during their incarceration, mostly defeating the purpose of the repeal. Also, denying all mentally ill criminals the right to all the other stuff (including a pleasant atmosphere) in a mental facility is too far even for us. Show some humanity, dude. You can trust me, I'm a doctor.

That exception was included solely to get this to pass. Don't worry, I or one of my region mates is going to write something regarding the criminally insane.

Edit: Also, that clause does not require those protections are not given to criminally insane people, it simply doesn't require that they are, if that makes any sense.

Passing the buck along to another 'region mate' down the line seems like a weird way to deflect those concerns, but valid I suppose. I mean, I surely trust these region mates to care enough about the criminally insane. However this resolution still does not solve the problem the repeal was passed to prevent. Literally one job, make sure people charged with a crime or whoever don't get their uncensored communication. While we have no stake it seems pretty odd and a huge waste of paper to allow this to happen.

[Rhenna]

Hello

[Simone Republic]

"I don't see there being a meaningful difference between 'agree' and 'consent' in this context. If a nation - or the administrators of a single MHF - wish to target an individual, they can simply deem them sufficiently incompetent to be able to agree to anything. It's a colorable and legitimate interpretation in our delegation's opinion."

Lewitt pauses for a few moments. “Upon reflection, I concur with your judgement. I am not quite sure how it would be addressed, but the proposal’s wording does leave open an undesirable loophole. I will take this into account in my judgement.”

Yes, it allows Nurse Ratched to deny key parts of healthcare to anybody convicted of a criminal offense - even if it happened years ago and is wholly unrelated to why the patient is in the MHF in the first place. It's a bad provision and should be reason enough to vote against. If the tinpot dictator says it's inhumane, you know you fucked up.

The same discussion has turned up on WALL with contributions from Kenmoria and we are discussing a separate resolution on patient rights and standards for health care facilities and staff in order to prevent all forms of potential abuse, not just in psychiatric care. I support the resolution as it stands on reliance on reasonable nation theory but yes there's scope to tighten protection for all patients.

[Free Algerstonia]

The Free and Patriotic State of Algerstonia, whilst opposing this proposal at the request of our sponsors, is pleased with the boldness and rationality the World Assembly delegation of Jedinsto has chosen in not forcing the Big Government Globalists in the World Assembly to force us to pay healthcare. Terrorists do not deserve any healthcare at all, they did the crime, they pay the consequences.

LONG LIVE THE FREE AND PATRIOTIC STATE.

Algerstonican Patriotic Bureau of Anti-Globalist Ministries of Freedom

[Jedinsto]

This is now at vote.

[Epicness and Pride]

(This is a placeholder nation for my main.)
As the first person to vote on this (ICF), I voted against due to me believing that this is far too unnecessary.
However, it is going to pass, so good job since alot of for votes came in.

[Nysa]

The text fails to demonstrate why this is an international issue, and why the WA is justified in stepping in here to undermine the democratic process on this issue. While these may be good policies we should support at a national level, imposing them in a one-size-fits all manner on all people’s via force is undemocratic, imperialist, and violent.

We vote against.

[Kenmoria]

The text fails to demonstrate why this is an international issue, and why the WA is justified in stepping in here to undermine the democratic process on this issue. While these may be good policies we should support at a national level, imposing them in a one-size-fits all manner on all people’s via force is undemocratic, imperialist, and violent.

We vote against.

“I refer the Nysan delegation to this clause: ‘Recognizing the fundamental rights to treatment and care that people with mental illness possess, and the high quality of care necessary to treat these individuals,’. Fundamental civil rights are universal, hence their name, and they are therefore international. I would posit that the nature of the Wood Assembly to impose peace and goodwill, via force if necessary. This is rather basic to its nature, so I am not sure why a nation would joined if it had an issue with this.”

[Philimbesi]

We rise to cast our vote against this resolution as it is our belief that this is not an international concern.

Further, should it pass, we will make known our intention to continue to exercise our best judgment regarding censoring any and all correspondence received or sent to our psychiatric patients receive while under care.

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA

[Serdequre]

OOC (because I don't have the spoons for RP atm): It's not entirely clear to me why 7.c. exists in the form that it does. Is there a compelling reason why a visitor ought to be able to unilaterally enact surveillance upon a patient they are visiting without the patient's consent despite both having already agreed to the visit and the patient determined not to be a danger? One doesn't jump to mind, so my nation will be voting Against unless an adequate one is explained.

[Lokkemand]

Here's a scenario:

Psychiatric evaluation determines that a patient no longer requires institutionalisation, but that person does not consent to being released from the mental health facility because of clause 7d. They have freedom of movement on the grounds because of clause 7f. Staff could argue that, in order to ensure an enjoyable and pleasant atmosphere for those under its care, the patient must be removed, despite clause 7d.

- Clause 4 expects non-institutional support to precede institutionalisation for a person with mental illness.

- Clause 6 means this individual could refuse these efforts, only being willing to receive the treatment in a mental health facility even if it would not otherwise be required in their degree of a case.

- Once inside, and even if only requiring a short stay, clause 7d necessitates that the now-patient must agree to leave.

- Because of clause 7f, this person cannot be prevented from freedom of movement to simply reside in the mental health facility, even though it is at the expense of the enjoyable and pleasant atmosphere afforded in clause 7e by the staff who must nonetheless protect him dependent on clause 7d. This could be argued as not the same as preventing injury to that person or those around them in restraining freedom of movement.

- Someone in such a scenario could then well be legally afforded to occupy a mental health facility unless they are criminally convicted, in which the rights of clause 7 should no longer apply.

- Nonetheless, this person can argue that clause 5 still affords them the provisions of clause 7 as the exclusion of clause 7 comes from clause 7g, which only refers to its section as having the criminal exception.

- So even if a squatting patient is prosecuted and convicted for unnecessarily occupying a mental health facility, removing clause 7's required applicability for member states, these same governments must still ensure them the provisions of clause 5, which might in effect assume the sensibilities of clause 7 anyway but with its specifications entirely and seemingly still nullified for the criminal.

But, clauses 3-6 are still in effect for the resolution, the situations with clause 7 may still create themselves even if part of the resolution apparently becomes void for the case of the criminally convicted. Only then it might be a matter of dealing with a prisoner who can still argue for care and could still refuse, which may, in effect, result in some end form of mental health facility if the mental illness so remains otherwise untreated by the refusal of lesser means by a person. The cycle could continue. Ad finitum. Clause 7 being in a limbo of legislative existence like a ghost.

Despite the fact that this above scenario may seem a considerably hypothetical thought experiment (for which it is), it is possibly something worthy to consider. At the least, it might be worthy to note that the criminal exception of clause 7g does not suggest clause 5 is removed, meaning that criminals can and can't be given proper mental health care, at least with how I'm interpreting it.

I would love to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Sorry if it is long, I put the bulletin point to divvy things up a little. On principle I support the bill, and certainly the particular substances of the proposed law, but it seems like there may be some structural peculiarities.

1. Criminals do and need not apply to this bill. Clause 7g clashes with clause 5, which is similar to 7d.

2. Disproportionate, excessive, cumbersome, and subsequently unnecessary support is here legally permissible so long as the target person wishes for it. Even if it is coming at the expense of the rights of others that we must also uphold.

I might be wrong, though, and I do want to readily point that out. I more or less just typed this up thinking about the resolution as I read it, so I'm not meaning to write this as some take-down of any kind. I just wanted to bring this in, since criminal considerations have been lightly touched on in the debate here, tangentially, with some concern, but not centrally, and maybe this conception ties into that with the bill here. Point 1 probably applies a lot more generally to the more niche point 2, but I'll leave that to the record all the same.

Maybe the squatter patient is a completely unreasonable, practically inconceivable one, to which if that's the case then I toss it aside. Still, the point about clause 5 relating to the annulment of clause 7 in case of clause 7g could well still stand.

[Lokkemand]

OOC (because I don't have the spoons for RP atm): It's not entirely clear to me why 7.c. exists in the form that it does. Is there a compelling reason why a visitor ought to be able to unilaterally enact surveillance upon a patient they are visiting without the patient's consent despite both having already agreed to the visit and the patient determined not to be a danger? One doesn't jump to mind, so my nation will be voting Against unless an adequate one is explained.

OOC I know in my country IRL at least, Canada, that at least for phone calls a phone call can for instance be recorded so long as one of the parties is aware (for instance the recorder)
https://globalnews.ca/news/5114032/reco ... nada-laws/
So maybe something similar applies here? Furthermore, you could argue that, though the phrasing sounds harsh, it could really just be having a staff member in the room. Appropriately equipped could include or exclude the idea of video or audio recording, but that's for OP to specify and even then it's not stated. Maybe we assume that employees wouldn't be appropriately equipped with recording devices? Maybe not. Perhaps it has to do with being appropriately equipped to handle the visit in some way.