NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Freedom in Medical Research

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Freedom in Medical Research

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:19 am

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other areas of sapient well-being,

REALIZING, however that further progress can be made in these fields, especially that of medical research,

CONCERNED that many member-states may ban the research of certain forms of medical treatment within their borders, despite their beneficial characteristics,

CONSTANTLY STRIVING to improve the lives of sapient-kind by furthering knowledge of surgical, therapeutic, and medicinal sciences,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, controversial treatment/experiment as any medical treatment/experiment(s), the application of which is debatable because of moral or ethical purposes,

The World Assembly therefore resolves;

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be penalized by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless fully informed consent was not acquired.

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless believed to be unethical by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully aware of any known side-effects of the experiment prior to participating in the tests; individuals who partake in the experiment must be compensated unless stated otherwise by the test-subject in question. Establishments hosting the aforementioned experiments must offer clear, apprehensible written form in which individuals may assess the terms of participation, and express their written consent; the aforementioned establishments shall also read the form to the individual until the individually fully understands the procedure.

(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.

(5) All research results that meet the criteria of this resolution shall be made accessible to the public, as well as any products that are developed as a result of the research. All drugs must be subjected to the same screening without discrimination if they meet the criteria of this resolution, and will be subject to equal legal protections as any other treatment, and shall be free from any discrimination that is not equitably distributed amongst all drugs offered in the member nation.

(6) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in advertisements; in the case that false claims are made, governments may prosecute them accordingly.

(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community, so long as such sharing is not done with dubious information.

(8) This resolution, in no way, prevents member-states from funding public healthcare mechanisms, nor does it prevent them from distributing medicinal, surgical, or therapeutic treatments free of charge, or for a lesser price than that of private actors.

Co-Author: [nation=short]Quadrimmina[/nation]


[...]

[...]

[...]

The General Assembly,

DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other sects of sapient well-being,

REALIZING, however that further progress can be made in these fields, especially that of medical research,

CONCERNED that many member-states may ban the research of certain forms of medical treatment within their borders, despite its benefits to the citizens, and other sapient-beings within their borders,

CONSTANTLY STRIVING to improve the lives of sapient-kind by furthering knowledge of surgical, therapeutic, and medicinal sciences,

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, controversial treatment/experiment as any medical treatment/experiment(s), the application of which is debatable,

The World Assembly therefore resolves;

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless fully informed consent was not acquired.

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.

(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully aware of any possible side-effects of the experiment prior to participating in the tests; individuals who partake in the experiment must be compensated unless stated otherwise by the test-subject in question. Establishments hosting the aforementioned experiments must offer clear, apprehensible written form in which individuals may assess the terms of participation, and express their written consent.

(a) Indivudals under the national age of majority shall not participate in any experiments, without informed, written consent from both the individual, and their legal parent(s)/guardian(s).

(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.

(5) All forms of research that meet the criteria of this proposal shall be made accessible to the public without negative consequences directed towards the enterprise that formed the treatment, and member-states governments shall not alter the price in any way, nor shall they coerce medical professionals to abstain from utilizing it; albeit, medical professionals shall be made fully aware of the treatment prior to utilization.

(6) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in advertisements; in the case that false claims are made, governments may prosecute them accordingly.

(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community,

(8) This resolution, in no way, prevents member-states from funding public healthcare mechanisms, nor does it prevent them from distributing medicinal, surgical, or therapeutic treatments free of charge, or for a lesser price than that of private actors.


Look Ma! No added bureaucracy! :p

As always, I anxiously await comments.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:01 pm, edited 19 times in total.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:21 am

Image

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:22 am

Flibbleites wrote:(Image)

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


Edited the OP, and:

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Yours in editing,
Last edited by Connopolis on Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:19 am

No, I think this is not actually restricting research: also, it is loosening government control, not adding more. In which case it should be free trade, significant.

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:21 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:No, I think this is not actually restricting research: also, it is loosening government control, not adding more. In which case it should be free trade, significant.


Dr. Forshaw straightened his tie, clearly embarrassed.

"Sorry, force of habit. I've changed the category accordingly."

Yours,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15245
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:53 am

I think the bit about how tests ought to be handled is covered already. Not sure about the bit where medications need to be properly labeled, that might be covered, though I could be wrong.

Also, the clauses about there not being any kind of rebuttal for such potentially immoral experiments ought to be restricted a wee bit. That allows for abuse. No concrete suggestions on the matter, yet, but I believe that the government ought to have a little bit of a right to step in and say "Gentlemen, this is a tad messed up. Best to steer in a slightly less macabre direction, eh?" on some of the more gruesome tests.

Other then that concern, we see no reason to oppose this.

EDIT: Section 5

(5) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in adverts; in the case that false claims are made, governments may PROSECUTE, not persecute them accordingly.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:59 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:I think the bit about how tests ought to be handled is covered already. Not sure about the bit where medications need to be properly labeled, that might be covered, though I could be wrong.

Also, the clauses about there not being any kind of rebuttal for such potentially immoral experiments ought to be restricted a wee bit. That allows for abuse. No concrete suggestions on the matter, yet, but I believe that the government ought to have a little bit of a right to step in and say "Gentlemen, this is a tad messed up. Best to steer in a slightly less macabre direction, eh?" on some of the more gruesome tests.

Other then that concern, we see no reason to oppose this.

EDIT: Section 5

(5) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in adverts; in the case that false claims are made, governments may PROSECUTE, not persecute them accordingly.


Noted; I'll make the revisions when I get the chance. I'm humbled by the fact that your excellency supports the proposal.

Yours in gratitude,

EDIT: I think that the Patient's Rights Act covers any concerns over macabre experiments; just as a safeguard, I'll revise it to ensure that individuals are fully informed of the testing prior to participating in it.
Last edited by Connopolis on Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8484
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:20 pm

Immoral experiments (i.e. without consent) are already covered in all sorts of places. (Notably International Drug Education and Universal Clinical Trials Act haven't been mentioned thus far.) What is it about this proposal that means that subjects needs to be covered yet again? It was mentioned in Medical Standards in Prisons to ensure that the same rights were given to prisoners as are given to the average citizen. If the subject is already adequately covered in at least 3 existing resolutions, why does it need to be covered again?

The publishing of medicinal research is also already covered. (once more, see IDE above - 1. IDEA will archive all research data within DOCTUS;) Further reading of that clause indicates that it will be made available to, at minimum, health care professionals. The clause that states, "individual nations may provide this information to others within their own borders as they deem appropriate," means that this proposal contradicts that line, as it is taking the decision-making as to access away from member nations. Therefore, that clause makes the proposal illegal.

Honestly, to me, this seems like a whole lot of already established recycled ideas. Very little here seems to be new information that isn't already covered (or contradicted by) existing legislation. I fail to see the need for this as presently written.

I could potentially see a proposal if items 1 and 2 being made into a valid proposal. However, in my mind, item 6 (if not already covered elsewhere - I'm not positive on that front) is better suited for a different proposal as it has a different scope/goal.

Do you want to ensure that health care professionals are safely able to attempt experimental treatments (with the patient's informed consent) or do you want to concern yourself with the proper labeling of medicinal drugs? They seem to be different sorts of topics/themes, to me, so I'd suggest splitting them up.

Also, something about 7 makes me think it's contradictory to something on the books, but I'm not sure which resolution off-hand. It could be a health care resolution, or it may be one of the patent/copyright resolutions, or ... something else. Honestly, I think you're better off excluding that clause entirely since I'm not sure how much it adds, anyhow.

Again, I think your best bet for a successful proposal here is to focus on clauses 1 and 2 and provide more detail/clauses regarding those. This, to me, seems like an attempt to throw a bunch of similarly themed ideas against the wall to see what sticks.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate to Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Dizyntk
Minister
 
Posts: 2699
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dizyntk » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:22 pm

"A couple of questions about Clause 3 of the proposal, Dr Forshaw. Is not one of the purposes of experimentation to ascertain side-effects? If so, then how would the company or university running said tests know which side-effects to warn against? The last part of the clause is very odd. You will get paid unless we tell you beforehand that you won't. Given that this seems to be an obvious thing, why even state it in the proposal? Overall, however, we see no reason to oppose this."
Dizyntk WA Ambassador Princess Feyalisa Zerleen Profile
What is a Dizyntk you ask? Dizyntk Info
Cyanka is the Dizyntk year and is equal to 18 earth months. Do your own math.

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:35 pm

Dizyntk wrote:"A couple of questions about Clause 3 of the proposal, Dr Forshaw. Is not one of the purposes of experimentation to ascertain side-effects? If so, then how would the company or university running said tests know which side-effects to warn against? The last part of the clause is very odd. You will get paid unless we tell you beforehand that you won't. Given that this seems to be an obvious thing, why even state it in the proposal? Overall, however, we see no reason to oppose this."


Sorry ambassador, the wording is awkward. Clause 3 is basically meant to ensure that test-subjects are aware that complications are possible, and if it is known prior of certain hazards, then they must be informed of that. Also, the end of the clause is meant to say that test-subjects must be compensated, unless the test subject states otherwise. I'll clarify the wording, and I thank you for your support.

Yours,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:40 pm

Mousebumples wrote:Immoral experiments (i.e. without consent) are already covered in all sorts of places. (Notably International Drug Education and Universal Clinical Trials Act haven't been mentioned thus far.) What is it about this proposal that means that subjects needs to be covered yet again? It was mentioned in Medical Standards in Prisons to ensure that the same rights were given to prisoners as are given to the average citizen. If the subject is already adequately covered in at least 3 existing resolutions, why does it need to be covered again?


IDE and UCTA both focus on drug/medicinal testing, while MSiP simply stipulates that prisoners are exempt from macabre testing. While I'd be willing to remove the clause, I simply thought I'd mention that it primarily conflicts with the Patients Rights Act.

The publishing of medicinal research is also already covered. (once more, see IDE above - 1. IDEA will archive all research data within DOCTUS;) Further reading of that clause indicates that it will be made available to, at minimum, health care professionals. The clause that states, "individual nations may provide this information to others within their own borders as they deem appropriate," means that this proposal contradicts that line, as it is taking the decision-making as to access away from member nations. Therefore, that clause makes the proposal illegal.


Not quite, ambassador. You seem to be viewing this from a medicinal standpoint (OOC: which is understandable, given that you're a pharmacist), however, this proposal covers all research, whether it be surgical, therapeutic, or medicinal, and that is not covered by International Drug Education.

Honestly, to me, this seems like a whole lot of already established recycled ideas. Very little here seems to be new information that isn't already covered (or contradicted by) existing legislation. I fail to see the need for this as presently written.


I would argue that, your excellency. The crux of the proposal is the clause that prevents immoral/inhumane experimenting, which I'd be willing to remove; I've yet to see another conflicting clause.

I could potentially see a proposal if items 1 and 2 being made into a valid proposal. However, in my mind, item 6 (if not already covered elsewhere - I'm not positive on that front) is better suited for a different proposal as it has a different scope/goal.


Ambassador, I find it in the interest of all nations to ensure that any medical research advertises the effects truthfully. Should a resolution such as this one pass, there's nothing preventing private mechanisms from advertising "Take our drug! It'll make you live forever!" I personally find it necessary to compound safety precautions with the rest of the resolution, in order to attain maximum efficiency.

Do you want to ensure that health care professionals are safely able to attempt experimental treatments (with the patient's informed consent) or do you want to concern yourself with the proper labeling of medicinal drugs? They seem to be different sorts of topics/themes, to me, so I'd suggest splitting them up.


The aforementioned statement should cover this, your excellency.

Also, something about 7 makes me think it's contradictory to something on the books, but I'm not sure which resolution off-hand. It could be a health care resolution, or it may be one of the patent/copyright resolutions, or ... something else. Honestly, I think you're better off excluding that clause entirely since I'm not sure how much it adds, anyhow.


I'm nearly positive that neither of the two copyright/patent resolutions forbid individuals from sharing non-patented information, nor do they allow individuals from sharing information that's already patented. I'll check just to make sure, but I can nearly guarantee you this clause isn't contradictory.

Yours truly,
Last edited by Connopolis on Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:43 pm

(7) Doctors shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved with the international community, unless the treatment has be patented, in which case the decision is left to the patent-holders.

Actually, The General Patent Charter specifies that patents involve public disclosure of an innovation.

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:47 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:
(7) Doctors shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved with the international community, unless the treatment has be patented, in which case the decision is left to the patent-holders.

Actually, The General Patent Charter specifies that patents involve public disclosure of an innovation.


Noted. I'll remove the clause Ms. Harper; I'm afraid I initially misread the resolution.

Yours,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Dilange
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7074
Founded: Mar 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Dilange » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:33 pm

Connopolis wrote:
DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other sects of sapient well-being,



"Alright,an excellent start."


REALIZING, however that further progress can be made in these fields, especially that of medical research,



"Indeed, the pursuit of a disease-free environment is one of our countries' top goals for medical researchers and medical bioengineers."


CONCERNED that many member-states may ban the research of certain forms of medical treatment within their borders, despite its benefits to the citizens, and other sapient-beings within their borders,



"True."



CONSTANTLY STRIVING to improve the lives of sapient-kind by furthering knowledge of surgical, therapeutic, and medicinal sciences,


"Ok."


The World Assembly therefore resolves;

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.


"I agree with with you, for too long medical practices and physicians who practice them have been put out into the dark and locked away for breaking the ideals of a nation. If it is a breakthrough medical practice that can save lives, then I do not see a NatSov barrier here, I see a refusal to accept a way to save the lives of citizens."


(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.


"Hmmmm....this might be a bit intrusive. It matters on how the researchers and scientists will test it, if there is an extreme danger risk then the government should step in and control the process....I could go either way on this, I see the benefits and the consquences."


(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully aware of any possible side-effects of the experiment prior to participating in the tests; individuals who partake in the experiment must be compensated unless stated otherwise by the test-subject in question.


"In agreement with this."


(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.


"This is another thing that is necessary for medical research....if the scientist withdraw the side-effects and dangers, the product or procedure could be a ticking time-bomb. I see this necessary."


(5) All forms of research that meet the criteria of this proposal shall be made accessible to the public without negative consequences directed towards the enterprise that formed the treatment, and member-states governments shall not alter the price in any way, nor shall they coerce medical professionals to abstain from utilizing it; albeit, medical professionals shall be made fully aware of the treatment prior to utilization.


"The first part of this can cause greed. Lets say a pharmaceutical company comes up with a cure for Ruestorde's Disease (disease in Dilange that has no cure), it is the only on on market. With an open market, they can charge a lot of currency for that drug. I believe it should be an affordable price.....I'd want to see something that can guarantee the price of the product is at a profitable but affordable price."


(6) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in advertisements; in the case that false claims are made, governments may prosecute them accordingly.


"I agree. If a medical company dramatizes it product, then the product's real use becomes unknown and those who are the unfortunate who take it, can suffer extreme consquences."

(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community,


"Alright based on my view of the proposal....I am FOR.

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:46 pm

Dilange wrote:
Connopolis wrote:
DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other sects of sapient well-being,



"Alright,an excellent start."


REALIZING, however that further progress can be made in these fields, especially that of medical research,



"Indeed, the pursuit of a disease-free environment is one of our countries' top goals for medical researchers and medical bioengineers."


CONCERNED that many member-states may ban the research of certain forms of medical treatment within their borders, despite its benefits to the citizens, and other sapient-beings within their borders,



"True."



CONSTANTLY STRIVING to improve the lives of sapient-kind by furthering knowledge of surgical, therapeutic, and medicinal sciences,


"Ok."


The World Assembly therefore resolves;

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.


"I agree with with you, for too long medical practices and physicians who practice them have been put out into the dark and locked away for breaking the ideals of a nation. If it is a breakthrough medical practice that can save lives, then I do not see a NatSov barrier here, I see a refusal to accept a way to save the lives of citizens."


(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.


"Hmmmm....this might be a bit intrusive. It matters on how the researchers and scientists will test it, if there is an extreme danger risk then the government should step in and control the process....I could go either way on this, I see the benefits and the consquences."


(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully aware of any possible side-effects of the experiment prior to participating in the tests; individuals who partake in the experiment must be compensated unless stated otherwise by the test-subject in question.


"In agreement with this."


(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.


"This is another thing that is necessary for medical research....if the scientist withdraw the side-effects and dangers, the product or procedure could be a ticking time-bomb. I see this necessary."


(5) All forms of research that meet the criteria of this proposal shall be made accessible to the public without negative consequences directed towards the enterprise that formed the treatment, and member-states governments shall not alter the price in any way, nor shall they coerce medical professionals to abstain from utilizing it; albeit, medical professionals shall be made fully aware of the treatment prior to utilization.


"The first part of this can cause greed. Lets say a pharmaceutical company comes up with a cure for Ruestorde's Disease (disease in Dilange that has no cure), it is the only on on market. With an open market, they can charge a lot of currency for that drug. I believe it should be an affordable price.....I'd want to see something that can guarantee the price of the product is at a profitable but affordable price."


(6) Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in, and are forbidden from making spurious claims about the substance in advertisements; in the case that false claims are made, governments may prosecute them accordingly.


"I agree. If a medical company dramatizes it product, then the product's real use becomes unknown and those who are the unfortunate who take it, can suffer extreme consquences."

(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community,


"Alright based on my view of the proposal....I am FOR.


You're support is much appreciated, your excellency. I've revised the proposal accordingly; I was unsure as to whether or not I should allow nations to lower the price, as that could be utilized as a loophole: Nation A makes the product free in an effort to completely bankrupt the company, therefore, the treatment is effectively prevented. I was also slightly apprehensive that forcing them to be made affordable would scare off the capitalists. I personally, would like to see the drugs be distributed freely (or for a reasonable price), but I'm not quite sure. I'll add a clause that allows governments to utilize these experimental treatments in acute situations, base on their own prerogative, in order to ensure that the private mechanism remains profitable, but allows your nation to effectively combat disease.

Yours in warmth,
Last edited by Connopolis on Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Black Marne
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 414
Founded: Jun 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Black Marne » Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:07 pm

For, I suppose.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne
Defense, Liberation, Bacon: UDL

FUS RO DAH!
World Assembly Delegate of New Dinosaurtopia

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:11 pm

Black Marne wrote:For, I suppose.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne


"You suppose"?

Dr. Forshaw began to cry, and promptly took refuge under his desk for the duration of his tantrum.

Just kidding. :p In all seriousness, I thank your excellency for their support. As always, we are humbled by your consistent support of our delegation.

Yours in gratitude,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:05 am

"Hmm, things seem simpler in the Queendom, where this sector is under government monopoly, profit irrelevant and prescription drugs distributed without cost for the patient. Would anything in this proposal force us to allow private actors in medical research?"
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:16 am

Alqania wrote:"Hmm, things seem simpler in the Queendom, where this sector is under government monopoly, profit irrelevant and prescription drugs distributed without cost for the patient. Would anything in this proposal force us to allow private actors in medical research?"


Your excellency, if the medical sector is under a government monolopy, what would prompt private actors to pursue this field? The only possible scenario would be if your government forbid [a] certain form(s) of medical research, in which private enterprises could research it freely. Other than that, it would be hard for any private actor to compete against the government.

Yours,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:30 am

(8) This resolution, in no way, prevents member-states from funding public healthcare mechanisms, nor does it prevent them from distributing medicinal, surgical, or therapeutic treatments free of charge, or for a lesser price than that of private actors.


I've added this clause, for clarification. Your feedback is imperative.

Yours with an inquiring mind,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Conservita Victoria
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 157
Founded: Feb 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Conservita Victoria » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:58 am

As the foremost leading health and science professional in the Most Holy Imperial Kingdom of Conservita Victoria, I offer my full support to your legislation fully recognising the freedom it would give myself, my teams, and health professionals around the world to conduct medical research to benefit society, a duty that all in science and health should strive to achieve at all times.

Should this come to a vote you can be certain that his Highness will give all the national support this bill will need.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Julius Richardson
Director of the Royal Institute for Science and Engineering

On behalf of King Rinamir Mortem of Conservita Victoria
Errare Humanum Est Preseverare Diabolicum

User avatar
Black Marne
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 414
Founded: Jun 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Black Marne » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:28 am

Connopolis wrote:
Black Marne wrote:For, I suppose.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne


"You suppose"?

Dr. Forshaw began to cry, and promptly took refuge under his desk for the duration of his tantrum.

Just kidding. :p In all seriousness, I thank your excellency for their support. As always, we are humbled by your consistent support of our delegation.

Yours in gratitude,


The only slight problem I see in this proposal is not really a slight one. What about the World Assembly member states that cannot afford to have medical research done? If we force them to do so, we may endanger their already fragile government spending. That is where the "I suppose" comes into play. I am hoping most delegates are able to afford such research.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne
Defense, Liberation, Bacon: UDL

FUS RO DAH!
World Assembly Delegate of New Dinosaurtopia

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:34 am

Black Marne wrote:
Connopolis wrote:
"You suppose"?

Dr. Forshaw began to cry, and promptly took refuge under his desk for the duration of his tantrum.

Just kidding. :p In all seriousness, I thank your excellency for their support. As always, we are humbled by your consistent support of our delegation.

Yours in gratitude,


The only slight problem I see in this proposal is not really a slight one. What about the World Assembly member states that cannot afford to have medical research done? If we force them to do so, we may endanger their already fragile government spending. That is where the "I suppose" comes into play. I am hoping most delegates are able to afford such research.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne


Your excellency, this proposal doesn't force nations to research anything. It simply forces them to allow private actors to fund it themselves. The government is not obligated to fund anything, and while it would be ideal if the healthcare sector was dominated by the government (See: Alquania Model), forcing that down the throats of the WA would be impossible. I hope I've clarified any misconceptions.

Yours,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


User avatar
Southern Patriots
Senator
 
Posts: 4624
Founded: Apr 19, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Southern Patriots » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:36 am

At first glance this proposal seems acceptable. I'll wait to see if any reasonable complaints arise, but for now I have to say I'm leaning towards support.

Remember Rhodesia.

On Robert Mugabe:
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:He was a former schoolteacher.

I do hope it wasn't in economics.

Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.

Ceannairceach wrote:
Archnar wrote:The Russian Revolution showed a revolution could occure in a quick bloadless and painless process (Nobody was seriously injured or killed).

I doth protest in the name of the Russian Imperial family!
(WIP)

User avatar
Black Marne
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 414
Founded: Jun 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Black Marne » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:58 am

Connopolis wrote:
Black Marne wrote:
The only slight problem I see in this proposal is not really a slight one. What about the World Assembly member states that cannot afford to have medical research done? If we force them to do so, we may endanger their already fragile government spending. That is where the "I suppose" comes into play. I am hoping most delegates are able to afford such research.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne


Your excellency, this proposal doesn't force nations to research anything. It simply forces them to allow private actors to fund it themselves. The government is not obligated to fund anything, and while it would be ideal if the healthcare sector was dominated by the government (See: Alquania Model), forcing that down the throats of the WA would be impossible. I hope I've clarified any misconceptions.

Yours,


EXCELLENT! You then have my full support, esteemed ambassador!

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne
Defense, Liberation, Bacon: UDL

FUS RO DAH!
World Assembly Delegate of New Dinosaurtopia

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads