[Challenge] Involuntary Admin of Drugs

[Separatist Peoples]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=480309

Well...that gives us little time.

Off the top of my head, that strikes me as a fair argument. I say its illegal.

[Bananaistan]

+1

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I would have to agree. Contradiction, illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's going to be a soft majority if we (likely) have one member not around in the next 18 hours, so we can probably safely pull the plug on it.

[Grays Harbor]

Illegal

[Bears Armed]

How did I miss that before?

Agreed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Thats that.

I have to tap out on drafting the opinion and notice in the thread. I have a stack of cases up to my waist that I need to hit before I travel this weekend.

[Grays Harbor]

How did I miss that before?

Agreed.

I was wondering the same thing, how all of us could miss that. Oops.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

How did I miss that before?

Agreed.

I was wondering the same thing, how all of us could miss that. Oops.

PRA generally isn't invoked all that often. I'll hazard a guess that IA only saw it because of a very recent Discord discussion between me, UMass, and Tinfect in which PRA is alleged to have a large effect on the application of another resolution (which one, I will leave as an exercise for the reader )

[Bananaistan]

Thought this would be quicker and easier. I see three points of contradiction.

1) The difference between next-of-kin and legal guardian in respect of adults referred to in PRA (VIII).
2) Children and adults referred to in PRA (VIII) where they are not incapacitated - the proposal would prevent their legal guardian from granting consent.
3) PRA (I) - emergency treatments and where the patient cannot grant consent (EG unconscious after an automobile collision perhaps). Doctors can do what's needed regardless of the patient's, the guardian's or the next-of-kin's consent.

The proposal “Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs” was challenged on the basis of contradiction with GAR#29 Patients’ Rights Act (PRA). The challenged proposal in Article 2, clause 2 states “Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin.” PRA states in Clause (VIII) “For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.”

The challenged proposal would ban intentional sedation in all cases, including during medical procedures covered by PRA, where 1) the express consent of the individual has not been obtained or 2) where the individual is incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin's consent has not been obtained. Under PRA, only a legal guardian can grant consent for medical procedures, if the individual undergoing the procedure is an individual under the age of majority or an adult unable to understand their rights under PRA.

We find that these provisions are contradictory. Regarding adults both unable to understand their rights under PRA and who are incapacitated, the challenged proposal would allow a legal next-of-kin to grant consent on their behalf. PRA restricts this to only the legal guardian of such individuals.

A related but separate point of contradiction is in respect of both children and adults referred to in Clause (VIII) undergoing sedation as or as part of a medical procedure, and where they are not incapacitated. The challenged proposal would allow these individuals to withhold consent for sedation regardless of the wishes of their legal guardians.

Finally, we find a further point of contradiction. PRA clause (I) allows physicians and qualified caregivers to provide treatment without an individual’s consent in an emergency and does not refer to requiring the consent of any next-of-kin or guardian. The requirement in the challenged proposal for the consent of an incapacitated individual’s legal next-of-kin contradicts this.

[Bears Armed]

Thought this would be quicker and easier. I see three points of contradiction.

1) The difference between next-of-kin and legal guardian in respect of adults referred to in PRA (VIII).
2) Children and adults referred to in PRA (VIII) where they are not incapacitated - the proposal would prevent their legal guardian from granting consent.
3) PRA (I) - emergency treatments and where the patient cannot grant consent (EG unconscious after an automobile collision perhaps). Doctors can do what's needed regardless of the patient's, the guardian's or the next-of-kin's consent.

The proposal “Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs” was challenged on the basis of contradiction with GAR#29 Patients’ Rights Act (PRA). The challenged proposal in Article 2, clause 2 states “Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin.” PRA states in Clause (VIII) “For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.”

The challenged proposal would ban intentional sedation in all cases, including during medical procedures covered by PRA, where 1) the express consent of the individual has not been obtained or 2) where the individual is incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin's consent has not been obtained. Under PRA, only a legal guardian can grant consent for medical procedures, if the individual undergoing the procedure is an individual under the age of majority or an adult unable to understand their rights under PRA.

We find that these provisions are contradictory. Regarding adults both unable to understand their rights under PRA and who are incapacitated, the challenged proposal would allow a legal next-of-kin to grant consent on their behalf. PRA restricts this to only the legal guardian of such individuals.

A related but separate point of contradiction is in respect of both children and adults referred to in Clause (VIII) undergoing sedation as or as part of a medical procedure, and where they are not incapacitated. The challenged proposal would allow these individuals to withhold consent for sedation regardless of the wishes of their legal guardians.

Finally, we find a further point of contradiction. PRA clause (I) allows physicians and qualified caregivers to provide treatment without an individual’s consent in an emergency and does not refer to requiring the consent of any next-of-kin or guardian. The requirement in the challenged proposal for the consent of an incapacitated individual’s legal next-of-kin contradicts this.

Signs on to this.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I sign this as well.

[Separatist Peoples]

I sign this as well.

Likewise.

[Bananaistan]

@ GH. DO you wish to sign on to this opinion?

[Grays Harbor]

@ GH. DO you wish to sign on to this opinion?

I thought I did? If not, then, yes.

[Bananaistan]

@ GH. DO you wish to sign on to this opinion?

I thought I did? If not, then, yes.

Thanks just wanted to confirm that you agreed with the draft ruling.

Now published.