[PASSED] Medical Research Ethics Act

[Quadrimmina]

FROM: The Holy Empire of Dark Side Messiahs
TO: World Assembly
SUBJECT: Medical Research Ethics Act

MESSAGE:
So, I can't use prisoners for blood and organ donation anymore? Com'on!

What if I say no; these people I am using are already sentenced to die, why should they get out of serving their punishment? Why waste the organs of these dregs when they can go to people who will use them to live a productive life? We have cloning technology, I guess we could always clone organs...

Fine, have it your way. Next week we change to public execution by guillotine.


Your Lord and Master

Lord Bubba McCrackin

Nobody said you couldn't do that. Go ahead, do it. There are specific clauses allowing you to do whatever you want to prisoners. Not to mention that organ donation doesn't fall under the category of medical research.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Research regulations dead on arrival, says medical study chiefs
By FRANCIS HERRINGTON

THIERRY — The Living Subject Studies Board, a division of the National Health Administration that regulates experimental medical studies involving, among other things, living human beings, has released a joint statement with the NHA on Wednesday clarifying the government's position on the World Assembly's newly-passed research regulations.

Glen-Rhodes, as a full participating member of the World Assembly, has the responsibility of upholding and complying with international resolutions. However, the Medical Research Ethics Act is fundamentally flawed and compels the government to mitigate the damages that may be caused by compliance with the resolution.

While the Living Subject Studies Board has maintained strict ethics standard, meeting and often surpassing the requirements of the new Medical Research Ethics Act, the NHA has determined that Glen-Rhodes will not by complying with the letter of the law. The unfortunate requirement that Glen-Rhodes create and maintain institutional review boards for neighboring nations is both untenable and fiscally impossible.

The NHA does work and will continue to work toward the advancement of the medical industry around the world. As of this year, we have established 215 local centers abroad, providing medical care and conducting research into diseases and maladies that plague undeveloped countries. To clarify, the ethics and medical standards set forth in the Medical Research Ethics Act are met and exceeded by the NHA and the Living Subject Studies Board.

This is not the first time the government has issued such statements in regards to World Assembly resolutions. In May of last year, Chancellor Alexander Gillibrand signed an order invalidating the controversial resolution Access to Science in Schools, arguing that the resolution discriminated against religious persons of poor socioeconomic status. Whether he had the authority to do so was hotly debated, but the High Court affirmed the authority of the Chancellor to invalidate a resolution believed to contradict fundamental legal principles or existing resolutions.

Dr. Bradford Castro, the Glen-Rhodes ambassador to the World Assembly, pointed out, "The vast majority of the law is not problematic. Commentators should take into account that the reason for rejecting the [Medical Research Ethics] Act is largely technical and has little to do with the spirit of the law -- that is, the ethics standards set form for human subject studies."

However, some political commentators are questioning if the government is beginning to change its stance on the principles of international federalism. "No, not at all. That's ridiculous. Glen-Rhodes complies with ninety-nine out of one hundred laws passed by the World Assembly. This case is just one of practicality -- we can't comply, because the demands are unrealistic."

When mentioned on the floor of the General Assembly, Dr. Arlo Lewis, Ambassador from Quadrimmina and the author of the resolution, denied the accusations mentioned in the NHA's joint statement.

[Quadrimmina]

Research regulations dead on arrival, says medical study chiefs
By FRANCIS HERRINGTON

THIERRY — The Living Subject Studies Board, a division of the National Health Administration that regulates experimental medical studies involving, among other things, living human beings, has released a joint statement with the NHA on Wednesday clarifying the government's position on the World Assembly's newly-passed research regulations.

Glen-Rhodes, as a full participating member of the World Assembly, has the responsibility of upholding and complying with international resolutions. However, the Medical Research Ethics Act is fundamentally flawed and compels the government to mitigate the damages that may be caused by compliance with the resolution.

While the Living Subject Studies Board has maintained strict ethics standard, meeting and often surpassing the requirements of the new Medical Research Ethics Act, the NHA has determined that Glen-Rhodes will not by complying with the letter of the law. The unfortunate requirement that Glen-Rhodes create and maintain institutional review boards for neighboring nations is both untenable and fiscally impossible.

The NHA does work and will continue to work toward the advancement of the medical industry around the world. As of this year, we have established 215 local centers abroad, providing medical care and conducting research into diseases and maladies that plague undeveloped countries. To clarify, the ethics and medical standards set forth in the Medical Research Ethics Act are met and exceeded by the NHA and the Living Subject Studies Board.

This is not the first time the government has issued such statements in regards to World Assembly resolutions. In May of last year, Chancellor Alexander Gillibrand signed an order invalidating the controversial resolution Access to Science in Schools, arguing that the resolution discriminated against religious persons of poor socioeconomic status. Whether he had the authority to do so was hotly debated, but the High Court affirmed the authority of the Chancellor to invalidate a resolution believed to contradict fundamental legal principles or existing resolutions.

Dr. Bradford Castro, the Glen-Rhodes ambassador to the World Assembly, pointed out, "The vast majority of the law is not problematic. Commentators should take into account that the reason for rejecting the [Medical Research Ethics] Act is largely technical and has little to do with the spirit of the law -- that is, the ethics standards set form for human subject studies."

However, some political commentators are questioning if the government is beginning to change its stance on the principles of international federalism. "No, not at all. That's ridiculous. Glen-Rhodes complies with ninety-nine out of one hundred laws passed by the World Assembly. This case is just one of practicality -- we can't comply, because the demands are unrealistic."

When mentioned on the floor of the General Assembly, Dr. Arlo Lewis, Ambassador from Quadrimmina and the author of the resolution, denied the accusations mentioned in the NHA's joint statement.

We regard Mr. Herrington's charges with skepticism to say the least.

The clause in question reads:
REQUIRES WA member nations to create and regulate an IRB system, or by treaty to create an IRB system in conjunction with other WA member nations for collaborative scientific research efforts, to provide for nations that do not have a high amount of medical research or where establishing an IRB would be prohibitively expensive to the nation.

Big 'or'. Create and regulate an IRB system OR establish one in conjunction with other nations. I understand the argument that the clause "to provide for nations..." seems like we're creating an IRB system for that purpose. But it is clear that that clause is to refer to the treaty section. And I'm sure that whatever court covers your jurisdiction would agree if the noncompliance is challenged.

There is a letter to the law, yes. But there is also an interpretation of this letter. The Quadrimminan High Court released a statement today that the law has been interpreted correctly by our delegation. This interpretation was coded into our law under the 111th World Assembly Compliance Act, and has been confirmed by the Quadrimmina Ministry of Health and the Office for Institutional Review.

[Ddreigiau]

I never said we were interrogating them, nor that we were performing procedures on them. In fact, I stated that we specifically do not perform medical procedures upon POWs. Are you feeling guilty about something, Ambassador? Perhaps something you would like to share with the rest of us?

Under Manticorian Law a "psychological evaluation" which your own testimony states you are performing on POWs is a medical procedure and would therefore be illegal. In addition, you stated that you "it is done without their permission" would certainly be unethical treatment of POWs.

A psychological evaluation consists of nothing more than observing their actions and asking questions of those that are cooperative. From there, you can build a psychological profile of the person in question. Seeking permission to observe the activities of prisoners from said prisoners does seem to defeat the point of them being prisoners, does it not?
Conducting a question-and-answer session with those in custody to help evaluate their threat-level is already part of safety procedures used in prisons across the country. The only difference with the POWs and our returning soldiers is that some of the questions (or all, in the case of our soldiers) are pointed towards their experiences and how they deal with them.
I suppose we could make the case that psychology isn't real medicine. Psychologists are, after all, shrinks.

[Rhoacolin]

((OOC)) So I'm confused because I've been gone for a few days. I got a letter saying that something about 'Compliance'... I'm just a little confused, do I have to do anything? PM me back please?