[Draft] The Right to Refuse Drugs

[Bergnovinaia]

But the problem with that is I'm pretty sure that the recreational drug proposals only have a ban/allow opiton and this would be neither of those.

[Flibbleites]

But the problem with that is I'm pretty sure that the recreational drug proposals only have a ban/allow opiton and this would be neither of those.

Actually, Recreational Drug Use proposals also have "Promote." Of course, that's basically just a supercharged version of allow so it's not really much help in this case.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Stash Kroh]

But the problem with that is I'm pretty sure that the recreational drug proposals only have a ban/allow opiton and this would be neither of those.

So then it would be a Human Rights proposals ? No?

[Danielturner]

Dear Representative. I an finding very hard to figure out how the mentally unstable would be able to refuse drugs. I look forward to seeing a revised draft. But unfortunately I cannot support this at the present time.

Yours,

[Bergnovinaia]

Perhaps it should be a human rights proposal. However, it most likely would have to cover all drugs then, not just recreational.

[Philimbesi]

This may be moot but I'm joining the debate late so please bear with me esteemed ambassador. Clause one does not take into account emergency medicine. It is often not possible to gain the consent of a unconscious patient and if this resolution were to pass clause 1 would deny them the ability to receive drugs simply because they are unable to consent to it.

[Bergnovinaia]

Great point ambassador. I will change that later.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I am appalled by any attempt at restricting vaccination, minor it may be. The superstitions of a few cannot ever supercede public health concerns. Fortunately, it shall never enjoy much the light of the day at the Proposals Queue, since it is so patently illegal, given:

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Goddess Relief Office

Description: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING the danger posed by communicable diseases, especially those whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis are unknown and cause human fatality;

REALIZING that a nation that intentionally withholds information about an epidemic within its borders places the international community at risk by impeding the ability of others to put into action plans to contain the disease or research a vaccine;

HEREBY

1) CREATES the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) within the World Health Authority. The EPARC shall serve the following primary functions:
a. Identifying and confirming international outbreaks;
b. Coordinating international outbreak response using resources from scientific institutions in World Assembly member nations, medical initiatives, regional technical networks, and international humanitarian nongovernmental organizations; and
c. Strengthening readiness for outbreaks of dangerous and emerging pathogens.

2) REQUIRES that all member nations report any outbreak to the World Health Authority EPARC if the incidence rate of a disease in any localized area reaches a level of more than twice that of the same calendar month in the previous year;

3) STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Providing medical care to infected individuals;
b. Issuing public news updates;
c. Eradicating insects, vermin, or livestock if they carry the disease;
d. Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals;

4) REQUIRES that all member nations share viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens samples with the World Health Authority EPARC so that the international community can research a vaccine and is kept abreast of developments if the disease evolves in virulence or other characteristics;

5) FURTHER REQUIRES that all member nations allow health inspectors from the World Health Authority and international aid agencies to travel to the affected area to provide aid to infected individuals, conduct research, distribute medical supplies and vaccines, or report the latest developments to the international community, as appropriate;

6) MANDATES that all member nations act responsibly in the control of the nation's land, sea, and airport and impose travel restrictions, if recommended by the World Health Authority EPARC, to help control the spread of the disease; and

7) ASKS that all member nations cooperate at all times with the World Health Authority EPARC on issues not enumerated.

Votes For: 3,735
Votes Against: 1,301

Implemented Thu Jul 16 2009

[WAR53 on NS] [WAR53 on NSwiki] [Official Debate Topic]

[Gobbannium]

I am appalled by any attempt at restricting vaccination, minor it may be. The superstitions of a few cannot ever supercede public health concerns. Fortunately, it shall never enjoy much the light of the day at the Proposals Queue, since it is so patently illegal, given:

We are clearly missing something. We have carefully noted the passages underlined, but we cannot understand why the ambassador thinks them to be in conflict with this proposal. None of them require individuals to take any medication proffered to them.

[Bergnovinaia]

I am appalled by any attempt at restricting vaccination, minor it may be. The superstitions of a few cannot ever supercede public health concerns. Fortunately, it shall never enjoy much the light of the day at the Proposals Queue, since it is so patently illegal, given:

We are clearly missing something. We have carefully noted the passages underlined, but we cannot understand why the ambassador thinks them to be in conflict with this proposal. None of them require individuals to take any medication proffered to them.

I have to agree.

[Bergnovinaia]

Does anyone know that if I changed this to "The right to refuse recreational drugs" what category it would fall under?

[Qumkent]

Does anyone know that if I changed this to "The right to refuse recreational drugs" what category it would fall under?

Is your Excellency being serious ? "The right to refuse recreational drugs" is in and of itself a complete logical impossibility. In any case there is a long used maxim in this place, find a category and write the resolution to fit it, don't write the resolution and try to shoehorn it into a category. No category exists under which to propose this resolution.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

Does anyone know that if I changed this to "The right to refuse recreational drugs" what category it would fall under?

Nigel blinked... turned his head to the side... then back... then he looked over at Max the USoP Translator. "I don't know, I speak about 250 languages and dialect, I can't understand it either" Max said.

Then turned to the delegate from Bergnovinaia.

"Is there suddenly an epidemic of people being held down and forced to take drugs at parties that I don't know about?"

[Qumkent]

Let us start from the top shall we,

The WA:

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

This is an utterly redundant recognition.

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

This is neither an accurate turn of phrase nor is it spelled properly, the word is "impaired" your Excellency.

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;

Who is this "they" in question your Excellency ? And under what circumstances would an individual want to refuse "access" to any form of medication let alone one ("mental stability drugs") which does not exist. And for any given reason ? Really ?

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

This note is needless.

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

Even if vaccinations are considered a threat to wellbeing ( "minute" or otherwise ) why would this have any bearing on the rest of this statute ? And what is against who's religion your Excellency ?

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.

What on earth is a "medical provider" ? Are they the same as the doctors later mentioned within this clause ? The rest of this clause is absurd and provided is not the same as "proveded"

2. These drugs are not to be restricted to mental drugs. They include every drug on the market.

What on earth are "mental drugs" ? In any case the term "drug" is not defined making its use meaningless. The last sentence of this clause does not even make sense.

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.

This clause is the most preposterous clause of all, your Excellency is proposing that it is better to murder someone for commiting a crime rather than administer them medications against their will which would have prevented them from commiting the crime in the first place ? Seriously ?

4. Legal guardians/parents may however make decisions for people in thier possesion whom are less than the age of majority in said nation.

Legal Guardians do not possess anyone, and this provision completely contradicts the rest of the (admitedly highly confused) provisions of this statute.

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.))

This provision is garbled nonesense, its definitions make no sense, its sentence structure makes no sense, what can be determined about its mandate is utterly absurd.

6. Member nations may still encourage or discourage drugs and vaccinations.

This is needless, and a right which even if it were worth having, states already have.

We must point out again that all of this resolution's intent is already covered by the Patient's Rights Act. What it has to do with recreational substances we are at a loss to say.


Yours,