[Draft] The Right to Refuse Drugs

[Bergnovinaia]

This is in it's early stages. I may of gotten the category wrong but I don't think it should go under recreational drug use.

The Right to Deny Drugs
Proposed By Bergnovinaia
Council: General Assembly
Category: Human Rights (???) Strength: Mild (???)

The WA:

Recognizing that certain citizens of member nations have varying forms of disease;

Further recognizing the concern that under some of these various diseases, a citizens judgement could become inpaired.

Realizing that although they may pose a risk they should have the right to refuse access to any form of mental stability drugs for any given reason;

Noting and applauding that certain member nations already may allow citizens to refuse drugs;

Further realizing that vaccinations and certain drugs are considered minute threats by certain citizens of member nations. It may also be against their religion;

Hereby mandates the following:

1. Any medical provider in any given nation is not to give drugs to any citizen in said member nation unless they ask for them. However, if a patient is incapacitated, doctors may administer drugs without the consent of the patient proveded they have previously not mentioned that they wish to refuse said drug.
2. These drugs are not to be restricted to mental drugs. They include every drug on the market.
3. This will not affect member states rights to euthanize criminal who have been convicted and are deemed a threat to the general public by educated physiatrists.
4. Legal guardians/parents may however make decisions for people in thier possesion whom are less than the age of majority in said nation.
5. Citizens can choose not to vaccinated except in the case of a child who’s attending a public school during a deadly pandemic (public school being a school managed by the nation and deadly epidemic being an epidemic that has a death toll, is considered by most doctors vary lethal, and at which the government has taking precautionary measures (such as mandatory vaccinations for school children.))
6. Member nations may still encourage or discourage drugs and vaccinations.

[Tanaara]

"First off

metal states

- what does the metalic contents of ones body have to do with all this?

Define

mental drugs

please.

And No, a thousand times NO - this is purely a national sovereiginity issue. We are not going to allow our people to be put at risk just because some idiot won't take his meds, and goes wandering about a threat not only to himself but to others. We're not going to let you contract a deadly disease just because you don't want to be vaccinated."

[Bergnovinaia]

I don't mean to be rude but it seems like every single proposal gets someone (not necessarily you) saying it violate national soverinty. So what? Can't all proposals theoretically violate national sovernity in thier own way.

[Rutianas]

I don't mean to be rude but it seems like every single proposal gets someone (not necessarily you) saying it violate national soverinty. So what? Can't all proposals theoretically violate national sovernity in thier own way.

This is actually true. All proposals violate national sovereignty in some way. The question is to what extent. As far as this proposal goes, I wouldn't argue national sovereignty. I'd argue that some people are a danger to society if they don't take medication. Surely their right to deny medication isn't as important as protecting the lives of others in that case. Personally, I'd look at it in the way of 'people have the right to be informed about the medication that they have been prescribed' instead of 'people can refuse to take any medication despite the potential danger to society'. That said, I doubt this would pass in it's current form because of that fact.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Bergnovinaia]

I don't mean to be rude but it seems like every single proposal gets someone (not necessarily you) saying it violate national soverinty. So what? Can't all proposals theoretically violate national sovernity in thier own way.

This is actually true. All proposals violate national sovereignty in some way. The question is to what extent. As far as this proposal goes, I wouldn't argue national sovereignty. I'd argue that some people are a danger to society if they don't take medication. Surely their right to deny medication isn't as important as protecting the lives of others in that case. Personally, I'd look at it in the way of 'people have the right to be informed about the medication that they have been prescribed' instead of 'people can refuse to take any medication despite the potential danger to society'. That said, I doubt this would pass in it's current form because of that fact.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Perhaps a clause allowing people who deny medication to be locked up. Thus, it would not undermine my proposal.

[Tropical Montana]

1. fix the spelling. i see several mistakes

2. to deny medication would be when the doctor or hospital refuses to administer to the patient. I dont think you mean that.

3. I believe what you intend is the right to REFUSE medical treatment

4. yes, i think a provision allowing governments to quarantine those who pose a threat to others' health whether due to refusal of treatment or otherwise would help its case.

[Tjennewell]

Tjennewell is not willing to support this draft in it's current form. We agree that patients should be involved in the process of medical treatment - currently we do so by allowing them to choose a certain treatment if there are several valid options. So if there is an approved therapy that doesn't involve drugs (or some that the patient will accept), our people are free to choose them in favor of others.

Denying drugs when they are the only way of treatment (and this was communicated well to the patient) indicates a deeper problem than just the illness itself - unless the illness renders a person unable to judge for himself in the first place.

The vaccination of children is mandatory. To keep them away from it would be considered willful neglect of the parental care.

[Bears Armed]

Patients Rights Act, clause 'IV'.

[Kelssek]

5. Citizens can choose not to vaccinated except in the case of a child who’s attending a public school during a deadly pandemic

We consider this completely unacceptable. Firstly, we would consider it wilful neglect towards the health of one's child, and a violation of that child's rights in the same manner as child abuse would be, as this act by an irresponsible parent would leave the child vulnerable to dangerous, potentially deadly diseases such as polio, diphtheria, measles, mumps, etc., diseases which once provoked much fear but which have now largely been eradicated precisely because of mandatory vaccination.

Furthermore, it is in society's interest that what is termed "herd immunity" exists in the population, to prevent outbreaks of such diseases. Your exception is ridiculously narrow; a pandemic is defined as a global epidemic, and is different from an epidemic, incidentally. And what of countries which have no public schools at all? Moreover, you would make it acceptable only to act after a deadly disease has killed people. This is fundamentally silly; isn't it far better to prevent that outbreak from occurring in the first place if that vaccine is so readily available?

Even from the standpoint of individual rights, when the right to refuse vaccination can potentially cause such serious consequences towards other individuals and those individuals' rights, the interests of society as a whole must take priority.

[Bears Armed]

Patients Rights Act, clause 'IV'.

"Ahem!

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

[Tjennewell]

I don't know what there is to 'ahem' about. Where vaccinations are a necessity to prevent harm (especially among highly contagious illnesses) they are well within the spirit of the Patients Rights Act. And like stated earlier, when patients refuse treatment, there may is something else deeply troubling them. Therefore our courts will look into it if the patient is competent to make such decision.

[Rutianas]

I don't know what there is to 'ahem' about. Where vaccinations are a necessity to prevent harm (especially among highly contagious illnesses) they are well within the spirit of the Patients Rights Act. And like stated earlier, when patients refuse treatment, there may is something else deeply troubling them. Therefore our courts will look into it if the patient is competent to make such decision.

Bears Armed is pointing out that this topic has already been dealt with. That's what the 'ahem' is about. At this point, there's nothing more to discuss here.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Kelssek]

Tjennewell has pretty much said what I wanted to say, vaccinations don't fall under the category of "treatment". They are, by definition, preventative.

And even though yes, there is duplication, not the whole thing is duplication, and the outstanding points still need to be addressed.

[Tjennewell]

I agree on that one. But I would urge the ambassador of Bears Armed to use a few more words next time - that statement could be interpreted in a lot of ways.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Due to the scope of the Patient Rights Act, would it be possible to probably ban the most harmful recreational drugs rather than medical ones? This would mean that recreational drugs which are proven to scupper the health of the user should be banned.

There may be potential here as a recreational drugs proposal but will need elaboration further, and will also need to steer away from medical drugs.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Tjennewell has pretty much said what I wanted to say, vaccinations don't fall under the category of "treatment". They are, by definition, preventative.

And even though yes, there is duplication, not the whole thing is duplication, and the outstanding points still need to be addressed.

(OOC: Who's to say that PRA doesn't cover preventative treatment, and not just 'sick care'? )

[Bergnovinaia]

Due to the scope of the Patient Rights Act, would it be possible to probably ban the most harmful recreational drugs rather than medical ones? This would mean that recreational drugs which are proven to scupper the health of the user should be banned.

There may be potential here as a recreational drugs proposal but will need elaboration further, and will also need to steer away from medical drugs.

I like your idea. However, aren't most recreational drugs not good for consumers. Maybe a proposal about right to refuse preventative treatment would be more suiting.

[Domnonia]

We are not comfortable with, say, a parent deciding that his/her child is better off dead than treated with medicine due to some obscure religious conviction.

[Bergnovinaia]

We are not comfortable with, say, a parent deciding that his/her child is better off dead than treated with medicine due to some obscure religious conviction.

I'm thinking of making an entirely diffent proposal that will make child vaccinations mandatory and parents have the choice.

[Progressive Union]

I'm thinking of making an entirely diffent proposal that will make child vaccinations mandatory and parents have the choice.

How can something be mandatory if there is a choice?

[Domnonia]

We are not comfortable with, say, a parent deciding that his/her child is better off dead than treated with medicine due to some obscure religious conviction.

I'm thinking of making an entirely diffent proposal that will make child vaccinations mandatory and parents have the choice.

So. you're withdrawing this proposal from consideration? A future resolution cannot negate a former sans repeal. Some folk would call it a blocking mechanism.

[Bergnovinaia]

We are not comfortable with, say, a parent deciding that his/her child is better off dead than treated with medicine due to some obscure religious conviction.

I'm thinking of making an entirely diffent proposal that will make child vaccinations mandatory and parents have the choice.

So. you're withdrawing this proposal from consideration? A future resolution cannot negate a former sans repeal. Some folk would call it a blocking mechanism.

No but as Bears Armed pointed out most of this with the exception of protective drugs/vaccines is already covered.

[Cynthia McKinney]

Democratic Socialist Alliance supports the right to refuse drugs and also vaccines.

Protection of Human Rights must always be prioritized ahead of "national sovereignty." The most important sovereignty is the sovereignty of the individual not the sovereignty of a government.

[Seculartopia]

4. Legal guardians/parents may however make decisions for their children whom are legally still minors.

I assume "legally still minors" applies to the nation's laws, and if not, then what is the definition of a "minor?"

5. Citizens can choose not to vaccinated except in the case of a child who’s attending a public school during a deadly pandemic (public school being a school managed by the nation and deadly epidemic being an epidemic that has a death toll, is considered by most doctors vary lethal, and at which the government has taking precautionary measures (such as mandatory vaccinations for school children.))

Does the stated in 5. apply to 4. ?

[Bergnovinaia]

I shall change that to "a person who's age is less than that of the majority."