NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Should doctors providing controversial treatments be immune from lawsuit and prosecution?

Yes
24
37%
No
41
63%
 
Total votes : 65

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:34 pm

Image

ImageImage

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 253
Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#171 | Proposed by: Image Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Realizing that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, says the following,

  • "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,"

Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he suffers at the hands of a physician, even if that patient did provide informed consent to the procedure that harmed him,

Opining that consent to a controversial procedure is not necessarily consent to every potential loss or injury that might result therefrom,

Suggesting that physicians who perform "controversial forms of treatment" and want to avoid lawsuits require the persons whom they are treating to sign contracts waiving the right to sue (see Resolution 205, Freedom to Contract) instead of relying on this Assembly to protect them from their own negligence or incompetence when they harm their patients,

Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are performed by charlatans and that are likely to cause severe harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families,

Noting that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, also says the following,

  • "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,"

Understanding that it is often impossible to fit an entire list of the ingredients and potential side effects of a drug on the label of the vessel and that it is more reasonable for the drug and its container to be accompanied by a separate pamphlet or booklet that contains a full list of ingredients and potential side effects in a font size that is large enough to read,

Worried, therefore, that the requirement that all side effects and ingredients be printed on the vessel is unreasonable,

Holding the position that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, is flawed for the aforementioned reasons,

Clarifying that the passage of this repeal does not prevent member states from enacting and enforcing their own laws to provide legal protection or immunity to physicians who offer and provide controversial or experimental forms of medical treatment,

Repeals Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, thus rendering it null and void.

Votes For: 8,777 (76%)
Votes Against: 2,728 (24%)

Implemented: Fri Jun 28 2013
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:13 am, edited 7 times in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:16 am

Support.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13610
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:14 am

So let's look at this scenario...

With this resolution in the books:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. But I knew the risks. At least I'm alive!"

What you want to happen:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. I knew the risks, but at least I'm alive enough to sue you for damages!"

Now who would that serve? No-one?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:43 am

Araraukar wrote:snip


If the doctor was negligent, then yes, the patient has every right to sue him for damages.

In addition, you're not taking into account the fact that this proposal limits both civil and criminal liability. The government should have the right to regulate medical procedures and practitioners.
Last edited by Auralia on Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:51 am

I can give an example too.

  • Ms. Smith is obese.
  • Dr. Jones has a controversial treatment for obesity.
  • This treatment has not been approved.
  • Ms. Smith suffers permanent liver damage.
  • Resolution 171 prevents her from seeking damages.
  • Dr. Jones continues these treatments on other patients.
  • The government is unable to revoke his medical license.
  • Quack Jones continues to harm desperate people.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:16 am

Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Ruior
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 56
Founded: Apr 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ruior » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:46 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I can give an example too.

  • Ms. Smith is obese.
  • Dr. Jones has a controversial treatment for obesity.
  • This treatment has not been approved.
  • Ms. Smith suffers permanent liver damage.
  • Resolution 171 prevents her from seeking damages.
  • Dr. Jones continues these treatments on other patients.
  • The government is unable to revoke his medical license.
  • Quack Jones continues to harm desperate people.


Here's two parts from the accused resolution:

(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully awareof 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.


From what this reads your scenario could be wrong in multiple ways. First off, Ms. Smith was informed of the dangers, she was paid for the study, and she signed a legal contract ensuring that she knew the risks. Therefore this is her fault alone and cannot sue. OR Dr. Jones deceived the patient, did not inform her, or did not pay her for the study. In this case Ms. Smith may rightfully sue your supposed "Quack Jones" and the government can do something about him.
International Gun Trading Edict - Re-Drafting Now

"We stand as a representative of compromise. Every topic has good arguments on both sides of the aisle. You just need to bring ideals from both sides to make good legislation."
-Tomassi Silva, Minister of Foreign Affairs, WA Delegate of The United Aliance of Wolcott

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:03 pm

Ruior wrote:From what this reads your scenario could be wrong in multiple ways. First off, Ms. Smith was informed of the dangers, she was paid for the study, and she signed a legal contract ensuring that she knew the risks. Therefore this is her fault alone and cannot sue. OR Dr. Jones deceived the patient, did not inform her, or did not pay her for the study. In this case Ms. Smith may rightfully sue your supposed "Quack Jones" and the government can do something about him.


There are certain medical procedures and treatments which should not be permitted, full stop. In such cases, the wishes of the patient or the doctor are irrelevant. Examples include the prescription of controlled substances (e.g. LSD), euthanasia and late-term abortions.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5442
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:19 pm

Auralia wrote:
Ruior wrote:From what this reads your scenario could be wrong in multiple ways. First off, Ms. Smith was informed of the dangers, she was paid for the study, and she signed a legal contract ensuring that she knew the risks. Therefore this is her fault alone and cannot sue. OR Dr. Jones deceived the patient, did not inform her, or did not pay her for the study. In this case Ms. Smith may rightfully sue your supposed "Quack Jones" and the government can do something about him.


There are certain medical procedures and treatments which should not be permitted, full stop. In such cases, the wishes of the patient or the doctor are irrelevant. Examples include the prescription of controlled substances (e.g. LSD), euthanasia and late-term abortions.

You start off right, and then quickly veer off into being so, so wrong.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Ius
Attaché
 
Posts: 95
Founded: Apr 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ius » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:49 pm

Ius, cannot support this proposal because we find it to be a crime against science.
(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).

This quote is from the Act that is in question for repeal. If a doctor's treatment is unethical the IRB will review and remove that doctor.
(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.

Patients that undergo these studies are fully informed about the risk and sign up without mental reservation.
This 'Act' should not be replied, it gives us knowledge of medical problems that we would have no information about.


All quotes are from GA#171

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:41 pm

Ruior wrote:<snip>
Ius wrote:<snip>

This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Ius
Attaché
 
Posts: 95
Founded: Apr 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ius » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:06 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Ruior wrote:<snip>
Ius wrote:<snip>

This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

There doesn't need to be patient protection, if patients don't wish to go through controversial treatment. Repealing this act makes no sense. You continue to use the word 'quacks' these 'quacks' have to give testimony to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a hearing before doing anything. And if they get past them they have to go there again and have their 'quack' license removed.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:03 pm

Ius wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

There doesn't need to be patient protection, if patients don't wish to go through controversial treatment. Repealing this act makes no sense. You continue to use the word 'quacks' these 'quacks' have to give testimony to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a hearing before doing anything. And if they get past them they have to go there again and have their 'quack' license removed.

The resolution grants the Institutional Review Board authority only to oversee enterprises, not individuals.

enterprise: n. a company, business, organization, or other purposeful endeavor.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:29 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Understanding that it is often impossible to fit an entire list of the ingredients and potential side effects of a drug on the label of the vessel and that it is more reasonable for the drug and its container to be accompanied by a separate pamphlet or booklet that contains a full list of ingredients and potential side effects in a font size that is large enough to read,

Worried, therefore, that the requirement that all side effects and ingredients be printed on the vessel is unreasonable,

Araraukar wrote:So let's look at this scenario...

With this resolution in the books:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. But I knew the risks. At least I'm alive!"

What you want to happen:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. I knew the risks, but at least I'm alive enough to sue you for damages!"

Now who would that serve? No-one?

In regards to this point,
Christian Democrats wrote:This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

We would like to point out this point in the actual resolution that the ambassador is trying to repeal.
(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.

In the event that something untoward happened, it would have either been covered by that particular clause, or, those medical professionals, or "quacks" as you would term them, have lied to the patients. In the event of the latter, they would automatically be excluded from the protection conferred by this resolution, and would be subject to local criminal and/or civil laws. Do correct me if my understandings of your statements, this repeal, and the target resolution, are wrong.
Last edited by The Akashic Records on Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:55 pm

The Akashic Records wrote:In the event that something untoward happened, it would have either been covered by that particular clause, or, those medical professionals, or "quacks" as you would term them, have lied to the patients. In the event of the latter, they would automatically be excluded from the protection conferred by this resolution, and would be subject to local criminal and/or civil laws. Do correct me if my understandings of your statements, this repeal, and the target resolution, are wrong.

In my repeal proposal, I do not intend to make this sort of contention. Instead, I wish to argue that patients, at least in some circumstances (which should be determined by domestic law), ought to be allowed to seek damages when they are harmed by physicians providing controversial treatments, even if informed consent was provided before the procedure. This is especially true when the physician makes some error while providing a complicated and controversial treatment. Physicians providing controversial treatments should not be legally immune just because they acquired informed consent from their patients. Patients should retain the right to sue when something goes horribly wrong (especially because of an error by the physician), even if they were fully aware of that possibility before agreeing to go forth with the controversial medical procedure.

Christian Democrats wrote:Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by national or subnational law instead of by international law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he or she suffers at the hands of a physician

To provide an example using a noncontroversial procedure, consider a heart transplant. The patient knows that he might die during surgery. Even though he knows this and still agrees to the procedure, his family still might be able to sue, depending on the particular circumstances of the case in question, if he does die during the attempted heart transplant, especially if the physican makes some mistake.

Also, Freedom in Medical Research unduly burdens governments, which have an interest in protecting the public. For the public good, the government might choose to prevent a person from undergoing a medical procedure that he desires. Why would the government do this? The government, as an impartial observer, might recognize that one of its citizens is not doing something that is in his own best interest, probably because his desire to get well blinds him to the fact that he is giving away his money to a quack or that he is putting himself at serious risk of suffering great injury. Sometimes, the government knows what is best for a person's health, not the person himself.

Christian Democrats wrote:Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are administered by quacks and are likely to cause severe physical harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:26 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Akashic Records wrote:In the event that something untoward happened, it would have either been covered by that particular clause, or, those medical professionals, or "quacks" as you would term them, have lied to the patients. In the event of the latter, they would automatically be excluded from the protection conferred by this resolution, and would be subject to local criminal and/or civil laws. Do correct me if my understandings of your statements, this repeal, and the target resolution, are wrong.

In my repeal proposal, I do not intend to make this sort of contention. Instead, I wish to argue that patients, at least in some circumstances (which should be determined by domestic law), ought to be allowed to seek damages when they are harmed by physicians providing controversial treatments, even if informed consent was provided before the procedure. This is especially true when the physician makes some error while providing a complicated and controversial treatment. Physicians providing controversial treatments should not be legally immune just because they acquired informed consent from their patients. Patients should retain the right to sue when something goes horribly wrong (especially because of an error by the physician), even if they were fully aware of that possibility before agreeing to go forth with the controversial medical procedure.

Christian Democrats wrote:Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by national or subnational law instead of by international law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he or she suffers at the hands of a physician

To provide an example using a noncontroversial procedure, consider a heart transplant. The patient knows that he might die during surgery. Even though he knows this and still agrees to the procedure, his family still might be able to sue, depending on the particular circumstances of the case in question, if he does die during the attempted heart transplant, especially if the physican makes some mistake.

Also, Freedom in Medical Research unduly burdens governments, which have an interest in protecting the public. For the public good, the government might choose to prevent a person from undergoing a medical procedure that he desires. Why would the government do this? The government, as an impartial observer, might recognize that one of its citizens is not doing something that is in his own best interest, probably because his desire to get well blinds him to the fact that he is giving away his money to a quack or that he is putting himself at serious risk of suffering great injury. Sometimes, the government knows what is best for a person's health, not the person himself.

Christian Democrats wrote:Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are administered by quacks and are likely to cause severe physical harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families
you seem to be equating them. Though, in the case of quacks, you could say that they would be willing to equate them for their own benefits, but in those cases, it would be deception, and as such, no protection should be conferred by the target resolution.

Again, from the target of the repeal,
(7) Medical professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of their research/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.

In regards to governments doing what's best for their inhabitants,
(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.
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:02 am

Now, separate issues are being conflated -- patients, test subjects, and the sharing of information.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:16 am

Christian Democrats wrote:Now, separate issues are being conflated -- patients, test subjects, and the sharing of information.

How does a quack propagating false information on patients that they're doubling as test patients not qualify for conflation?
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Grindalythe
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 12
Founded: Jun 20, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Grindalythe » Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:08 am

"fully informed consent"

Enough said.
Regards,

Sebyn Farsees

Prime Minister of the Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Grindalythe and Minor Outlying Nations by Royal appointment of HM Queen Ellen II
Grindalythe
The Grand Coalition

User avatar
Ruior
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 56
Founded: Apr 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ruior » Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:45 am

Christian Democrats wrote:To provide an example using a noncontroversial procedure, consider a heart transplant. The patient knows that he might die during surgery. Even though he knows this and still agrees to the procedure, his family still might be able to sue, depending on the particular circumstances of the case in question, if he does die during the attempted heart transplant, especially if the physican makes some mistake.


Correct. This is right and protected under the accused resolution. A heart transplant, in nations where the equipment and knowhow is present, is a noncontroversial form of treatment, and there for the doctor may be sued.

Christian Democrats wrote:Also, Freedom in Medical Research unduly burdens governments, which have an interest in protecting the public. For the public good, the government might choose to prevent a person from undergoing a medical procedure that he desires. Why would the government do this? The government, as an impartial observer, might recognize that one of its citizens is not doing something that is in his own best interest, probably because his desire to get well blinds him to the fact that he is giving away his money to a quack or that he is putting himself at serious risk of suffering great injury. Sometimes, the government knows what is best for a person's health, not the person himself.


This is a NatSov argument alone here. "The government might want to..." and "The government should be able to..." are simply ways of saying that you want the governments to have more control over their own healthcare systems. That's not a problem, except it's the only practical argument I've seen in this debate so far.

Additionally, I'd like to make another point about why the accused resolution is so beneficial. Controversial practices are addressed in this resolution because before this many doctors could not perform them. Why you may ask? Not because the procedure was horrible, but instead it was because the procedure would get the doctors sued. In a controversial procedure there are no set in stone results, but there are some good thoughts behind them. In order to turn a controversial treatment into a beneficial one it needs to be practiced and a set of standards need to be set in place. This can only be done if doctors aren't forced through malpractice suits by people who knew the risks.

OOC: In RL the first heart transplant was a success, however the patient soon died after complications. Thankfully the family of the patient did not sue or did not have the means too. I say that because nowadays over 3,000 heart transplants are performed annually and it is a life saving procedure. Without doctors willing to risk their careers to test them, controversial procedure will never become cutting edge science.
International Gun Trading Edict - Re-Drafting Now

"We stand as a representative of compromise. Every topic has good arguments on both sides of the aisle. You just need to bring ideals from both sides to make good legislation."
-Tomassi Silva, Minister of Foreign Affairs, WA Delegate of The United Aliance of Wolcott

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4941
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:26 am

Ruior wrote:Additionally, I'd like to make another point about why the accused resolution is so beneficial. Controversial practices are addressed in this resolution because before this many doctors could not perform them. Why you may ask? Not because the procedure was horrible, but instead it was because the procedure would get the doctors sued. In a controversial procedure there are no set in stone results, but there are some good thoughts behind them. In order to turn a controversial treatment into a beneficial one it needs to be practiced and a set of standards need to be set in place. This can only be done if doctors aren't forced through malpractice suits by people who knew the risks.


This does not excuse the fact that the resolution forbids government regulation of controversial medical treatments.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
The Akashic Records
Diplomat
 
Posts: 803
Founded: May 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Akashic Records » Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:22 am

Auralia wrote:
Ruior wrote:Additionally, I'd like to make another point about why the accused resolution is so beneficial. Controversial practices are addressed in this resolution because before this many doctors could not perform them. Why you may ask? Not because the procedure was horrible, but instead it was because the procedure would get the doctors sued. In a controversial procedure there are no set in stone results, but there are some good thoughts behind them. In order to turn a controversial treatment into a beneficial one it needs to be practiced and a set of standards need to be set in place. This can only be done if doctors aren't forced through malpractice suits by people who knew the risks.


This does not excuse the fact that the resolution forbids government regulation of controversial medical treatments.

My aide and I cannot fathom how it forbids government regulation of controversial medical treatments. The fact that the medical professionals must obtain fully informed consent already implies that the government have knowledge of what the procedure entails, and anything outside of that is not covered by the protection conferred by the resolution, making them not immune to prosecution. The key word of the target resolution is, fully informed.

The fact that it does not specifically target single medical professionals, is based on the logic that, only enterprises and universities, have the financial means, as well as other resources to actually conduct medical research. Private funding should also fall under "enterprises", as they actually employ professionals from either universities or pharmaceutical companies or any other medical field of research, with or without intent to market their findings, as it may be beneficial or harmful to its subjects, hence, are under the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

As for these snake oil salesmen, they ought to be tried under Concerning Financial Fraud, if anything, as that's exactly what they're doing; fraud.
About my posts:
Unless otherwise stated, everything I say is in character.
Coleman T. Harrison,
WA Ambassador for The Akashic Records
On Sanity - Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.
No, the idea behind it (free will) is that one has the option to be Good (tm) and the option to be Bad (tm). God is rather pro-choice. - The Alma Mater -

User avatar
Ius
Attaché
 
Posts: 95
Founded: Apr 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ius » Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:13 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Ius wrote:There doesn't need to be patient protection, if patients don't wish to go through controversial treatment. Repealing this act makes no sense. You continue to use the word 'quacks' these 'quacks' have to give testimony to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a hearing before doing anything. And if they get past them they have to go there again and have their 'quack' license removed.

The resolution grants the Institutional Review Board authority only to oversee enterprises, not individuals.

enterprise: n. a company, business, organization, or other purposeful endeavor.


INDIVIDUAL n, 1a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a
teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group
b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>

I have a dictionary too. :clap:
In order to practice medicine or law, a person must be certified by an oversight board or a bar. In this case all individuals or 'quacks' must be certified by the IRB and all their research and activities will be monitored. I cannot stress this enough, repealing this would be a crime against Science.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:54 am

Grindalythe wrote:"fully informed consent"

Enough said.

In not too many words, this is the basic argument being made by everyone against this repeal proposal.

I ask this in response: why should a person relinquish his right to sue when he consents to a controversial procedure?

If the physician does not want to be sued, he should require the patient to sign a contract in which he gives up the right to sue. It is not the job of the General Assembly to dictate the liability of physicians who are performing controversial medical procedures.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:24 pm

I have made some changes to the repeal proposal. Hopefully, the argument against Freedom in Medical Research is now clearer.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads