[DISCARDED] Freedom to Seek Care

[Frisbeeteria]

AT VOTE

Freedom to Seek Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that many nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders, when better treatment may be obtained elsewhere,

The General Assembly:

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting citizens and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense, 

SECTION 2: Urges member nations on both ends of the travel to expedite their legal processes for travel to medical patients, and in the case of dependents their guardians or caretakers as well, or to those who urgently request and demonstrate a need for medical care abroad.

SECTION 3: Prohibits member nations from discriminating in their travel policies against non-citizens solely for traveling to seek medical treatment.

SECTION 4: Urges member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

SECTION 5: Prohibits member nations from prosecuting citizens who seek medical treatments or operations abroad that are illegal or banned within their own borders but that have not been banned by the General Assembly, and requires that individuals who obtain such treatment be accepted back into their home nation without prejudice or any legal repercussions based on their medical treatment.‎

SECTION 6: Declares that the government of the patient's nation of origin is not obligated or financially responsible in any way for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.‎

SECTION 7: Clarifies that no nation is required to accept foreign medical patients under this measure.

Co-authored by United Massachusetts

[United Massachusetts]

"Freedom to Seek Care" sounds like a better title. No need for the "Act".

[New Waldensia]

"Freedom to Seek Care" sounds like a better title. No need for the "Act".

Updated

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Well, since every member nation is required to provide nationalized healthcare anyway (OOC: I remember someone bringing this up. Can someone link to the relevant resolution?), I wouldn't necessarily say it's entirely at the patient's own expense. Tiny and likely irrelevant nitpick aside, the Greater Siriusian Domain is in full support of this proposal and in addition is willing to provide hospital ships for citizens of planet-bound nations should they request off-world assistance."

[New Waldensia]

Teran Saber: "Well, since every member nation is required to provide nationalized healthcare anyway (OOC: I remember someone bringing this up. Can someone link to the relevant resolution?), I wouldn't necessarily say it's entirely at the patient's own expense. Tiny and likely irrelevant nitpick aside, the Greater Siriusian Domain is in full support of this proposal and in addition is willing to provide hospital ships for citizens of planet-bound nations should they request off-world assistance."

Josiah Garrett, New Waldensia's Delegate and chief diplomat: "Section 6 was included to relieve any concerns that this would be forcing healthcare expenses on other countries. In fact, one could view this as causing economic benefit and development to many nations."

[Fauxia]

I would change "General Assembly" to "World Assembly" as that is what is usually used. Also, I'm trying to formulate my reasoning for not liking section 5, I'll get to that in a minute. I'll probably support in it's current state, but it could be better.

[Manaime]

The category is wrong. It's about Health.

[Fauxia]

The category is wrong. It's about Health.

I understand this sentiment, but it isn't really about health, it's about the ability to seek helathcare. It doesn't put regulations on the industry, so I think that it is human rights. But we'll see.
GenSec, now would be a good time to show up . I don't think I can lodge a legality challenge on something that hasn't been submitted.

[Nessuna-Arma]

Bemoaning the tyrannical tendencies which compel some members nations

Looks like a typo, "members nations."

In theory I can support this cause, but I do have some concerns. One is, I wonder what might happen if there's a worldwide epidemic and, let's say, there isn't enough medication in my nation for all of my citizens plus the influx of patients from other nations. According to this proposal, if I'm understanding it correctly, Section 3 may make it difficult, if not impossible, for my nation to close its borders to those who are infected. Is that your intent? If not, can this be reworded?

[New Waldensia]

[In theory I can support this cause, but I do have some concerns. One is, I wonder what might happen if there's a worldwide epidemic and, let's say, there isn't enough medication in my nation for all of my citizens plus the influx of patients from other nations. According to this proposal, if I'm understanding it correctly, Section 3 may make it difficult, if not impossible, for my nation to close its borders to those who are infected. Is that your intent? If not, can this be reworded?

Section 3 also states an exception for infectious diseases, so I think that would cover your scenario.

[Fauxia]

[In theory I can support this cause, but I do have some concerns. One is, I wonder what might happen if there's a worldwide epidemic and, let's say, there isn't enough medication in my nation for all of my citizens plus the influx of patients from other nations. According to this proposal, if I'm understanding it correctly, Section 3 may make it difficult, if not impossible, for my nation to close its borders to those who are infected. Is that your intent? If not, can this be reworded?

Section 3 also states an exception for infectious diseases, so I think that would cover your scenario.

Perfect on that matter.

I think section 5 implies that you can go kill a bunch of people in the nation a patient goes to and you can't be punished in your original nation. Though that's an unlikely scenario, I would change it.

[Nessuna-Arma]

Section 3 also states an exception for infectious diseases, so I think that would cover your scenario.

I am not sure how I missed that. Thank you.

The category is wrong. It's about Health.

I understand this sentiment, but it isn't really about health, it's about the ability to seek helathcare. It doesn't put regulations on the industry, so I think that it is human rights. But we'll see.
GenSec, now would be a good time to show up . I don't think I can lodge a legality challenge on something that hasn't been submitted.

Just thinking aloud here, please bear with me, but I am unsure about the best category. It could fit as Human Rights but it could also fit in Health/International Aid, which is for "governments to spend their money on poor sick foreigners." I suppose this proposal does both. It would allow my nation's people unrestricted access to foreign healthcare (Human Rights) and forces my nation to treat poor, sick foreigners (International Aid). Something for the author to think about.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll note that the Category rule doesn't state that a proposal must fit in exactly one category. Proposals could theoretically fit in multiple categories, with the exact choice left to the discretion of the author.

[Bears Armed]

I'll note that the Category rule doesn't state that a proposal must fit in exactly one category. Proposals could theoretically fit in multiple categories, with the exact choice left to the discretion of the author.

OOC: However, proposals that are split too evenly between categories -- rather than fitting primarily fitting into the one designated -- might not be accepted as 'legal'.
I'd agree that 'Human Rights (Mild)' is appropriate for this proposal.

[New Waldensia]

I think section 5 implies that you can go kill a bunch of people in the nation a patient goes to and you can't be punished in your original nation. Though that's an unlikely scenario, I would change it.

Hmm. I don't quite see it that way, but let me explain the intent and maybe you can suggest a different wording.

Section 5 is intended to allow an individual to seek and obtain medical treatments or procedures in other nations that are illegal or banned in their own.

Example: Patient has Rare Disease Numero Tres. In a neighboring country, there is a legal, experimental drug or treatment for RDNT that is not allowed in his country. This measure is designed to allow him to seek treatment there, and be able to return home without being charged with a crime for obtaining what would be an illegal treatment at home.

The "no prosecution" bit is aimed at the medical treatment that is illegal at home, no crimes charged upon return. Crimes committed while traveling for treatment shouldn't be affected.

[New Waldensia]

Just thinking aloud here, please bear with me, but I am unsure about the best category. It could fit as Human Rights but it could also fit in Health/International Aid, which is for "governments to spend their money on poor sick foreigners." I suppose this proposal does both. It would allow my nation's people unrestricted access to foreign healthcare (Human Rights) and forces my nation to treat poor, sick foreigners (International Aid). Something for the author to think about.

Well, it is somewhat restricted in that the individual(s) seeking care must bear the financial responsibility personally, which also kind of address the "International Aid" bit, as it actually turns more into receiving an economic benefit than causing additional cost for the host nation.

[Fauxia]

I think section 5 implies that you can go kill a bunch of people in the nation a patient goes to and you can't be punished in your original nation. Though that's an unlikely scenario, I would change it.

Hmm. I don't quite see it that way, but let me explain the intent and maybe you can suggest a different wording.

Section 5 is intended to allow an individual to seek and obtain medical treatments or procedures in other nations that are illegal or banned in their own.

Example: Patient has Rare Disease Numero Tres. In a neighboring country, there is a legal, experimental drug or treatment for RDNT that is not allowed in his country. This measure is designed to allow him to seek treatment there, and be able to return home without being charged with a crime for obtaining what would be an illegal treatment at home.

The "no prosecution" bit is aimed at the medical treatment that is illegal at home, no crimes charged upon return. Crimes committed while traveling for treatment shouldn't be affected.

As I said, I support anyway. It's not an important problem. I'm just afraid of nations abusing it.

[Fauxia]

Section 3 also states an exception for infectious diseases, so I think that would cover your scenario.

I am not sure how I missed that. Thank you.

I understand this sentiment, but it isn't really about health, it's about the ability to seek helathcare. It doesn't put regulations on the industry, so I think that it is human rights. But we'll see.
GenSec, now would be a good time to show up . I don't think I can lodge a legality challenge on something that hasn't been submitted.

Just thinking aloud here, please bear with me, but I am unsure about the best category. It could fit as Human Rights but it could also fit in Health/International Aid, which is for "governments to spend their money on poor sick foreigners." I suppose this proposal does both. It would allow my nation's people unrestricted access to foreign healthcare (Human Rights) and forces my nation to treat poor, sick foreigners (International Aid). Something for the author to think about.

I don't think it requires governments to pay for healthcare of foreign citizens

I'll note that the Category rule doesn't state that a proposal must fit in exactly one category. Proposals could theoretically fit in multiple categories, with the exact choice left to the discretion of the author.

OOC: However, proposals that are split too evenly between categories -- rather than fitting primarily fitting into the one designated -- might not be accepted as 'legal'.
I'd agree that 'Human Rights (Mild)' is appropriate for this proposal.

Oh look, I asked for GenSec to come and a member did! Thanks BA

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: However, proposals that are split too evenly between categories -- rather than fitting primarily fitting into the one designated -- might not be accepted as 'legal'.

I don't think that's true. You'll probably say that, something, something, precedent from the Jolt forum that nobody can see or confirm the existence of, but then I'll just hit 'track changes' on the rule – which has been entirely rewritten. There was no test in the past for category violations. There is now a test, specified directly in the rule.

And whereas the rule once said:

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc[ing] income inequality and increas[ing] basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

It now says:

Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category. The category determines the proposal's statistical affect on member nations. Categories have either a Strength or Area of Effect. A breakdown of the Categories and their applicable Strength or Area of Effect can be found in the post below.

The rule states that the proposal's content must align with the chosen category. That does not mean that it cannot also align with a different category that was not chosen. The rule is quite clear in that regard. (EDIT: Spacing)

[Nessuna-Arma]

Just thinking aloud here, please bear with me, but I am unsure about the best category. It could fit as Human Rights but it could also fit in Health/International Aid, which is for "governments to spend their money on poor sick foreigners." I suppose this proposal does both. It would allow my nation's people unrestricted access to foreign healthcare (Human Rights) and forces my nation to treat poor, sick foreigners (International Aid). Something for the author to think about.

Well, it is somewhat restricted in that the individual(s) seeking care must bear the financial responsibility personally, which also kind of address the "International Aid" bit, as it actually turns more into receiving an economic benefit than causing additional cost for the host nation.

That's fair, and that economic benefit you speak of is likely small as well. It does seem to me that Human Rights is proper.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise, ---- (1)

Aware that many nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, ---- (2)

Acknowledging that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them, ---- (3)

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎ ---- (4)

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders, when better treatment may be obtained elsewhere, ---- (5)

Bemoaning the tyrannical tendencies which compel some members nations to refuse to provide adequate care to medical patients, subjecting them to additional pain, suffering, and lower standards of living, ‎---- (6)

I'd suggest cutting down on the number of opening clauses by combining and rearranging them. In my experience, most delegates have short attention spans. You risk losing your reader's attention if your preamble is too long.

--- To me, (2) and (3) can be combined.

--- Clause (4) looks misplaced. Place it at the end or the beginning.

--- Clause (6) looks like a political statement. I wouldn't suggest keeping this clause. It detracts from your task if you have to fight and argue with nations whom you refer to having "tyrannical tendencies". A statement or claim like that must be supported by evidence.

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying the right of individuals to seek healthcare in other nations for themselves, their children, and other dependents, on their accord, and by their own expense,

That's a lot of commas! Make it easier for people to read by saying:

Prohibits member nations from denying individuals and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations on their own expense.

--- "on their own accord" is understood. There's no need to say that.

--- "the right of" is implied by the rest of the sentence.

--- "dependents" include children. There's no need to repeat.

I'll stop here.

~GRO~

[Fauxia]

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise, ---- (1)

Aware that many nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, ---- (2)

Acknowledging that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them, ---- (3)

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎ ---- (4)

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders, when better treatment may be obtained elsewhere, ---- (5)

Bemoaning the tyrannical tendencies which compel some members nations to refuse to provide adequate care to medical patients, subjecting them to additional pain, suffering, and lower standards of living, ‎---- (6)

I'd suggest cutting down on the number of opening clauses by combining and rearranging them. In my experience, most delegates have short attention spans. You risk losing your reader's attention if your preamble is too long.

--- To me, (2) and (3) can be combined.

--- Clause (4) looks misplaced. Place it at the end or the beginning.

--- Clause (6) looks like a political statement. I wouldn't suggest keeping this clause. It detracts from your task if you have to fight and argue with nations whom you refer to having "tyrannical tendencies". A statement or claim like that must be supported by evidence.

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying the right of individuals to seek healthcare in other nations for themselves, their children, and other dependents, on their accord, and by their own expense,

That's a lot of commas! Make it easier for people to read by saying:

Prohibits member nations from denying individuals and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations on their own expense.

--- "on their own accord" is understood. There's no need to say that.

--- "the right of" is implied by the rest of the sentence.

--- "dependents" include children. There's no need to repeat.

I'll stop here.

~GRO~

These are good suggestions. Take them into account.

[New Waldensia]

The latest rendition. I think this is close to submission.

One question, brought up earlier by Fauxia. Should it be General Assembly, or World Assembly? I've seen both in passed [and past, lol] resolutions.

Freedom to Seek Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that many nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders, when better treatment may be obtained elsewhere,

The General Assembly:

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting individuals and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense, 

SECTION 2: Urges member nations on both ends of the travel to expedite their legal processes for travel or immigration to medical patients, and in the case of dependents their guardians or caretakers as well, or to those who urgently request and demonstrate a need for medical care abroad.

SECTION 3: Prohibits member nations from discriminating in their immigration policies against non-citizens seeking medical treatment, with the exception that nations may set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of patients with infectious diseases.

SECTION 4: Urges member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

SECTION 5: Prohibits member nations from prosecuting citizens who seek medical treatments or operations abroad that are illegal or banned within their own borders, and requires that individuals who obtain such treatment be accepted back into their home nation without prejudice or any legal repercussions of any sort.‎

SECTION 6: Declares that the government of the patient's nation of origin is not obligated or financially responsible in any way for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.‎

Co-authored by United Massachusetts‎

[Araraukar]

One question, brought up earlier by Fauxia. Should it be General Assembly, or World Assembly? I've seen both in passed [and past, lol] resolutions.

OOC: Both work. It's basically whichever you find prettier.

IC: So, why is immigration included? Surely a nation shouldn't be forced to admit chronically sick immigrants, who will likely just be a burden to its healthcare and welfare systems? Traveling abroad temporarily to seek a particular cure I can understand, but no nation should be forced to take in immigrants they don't want. (I'm also almost certain that there's a resolution that allows nations to require traveling visas from all incoming people.)

Also, no mention is made of criminal exceptions. Nations also shouldn't be forced to let known criminals - either ones wanted by law enforcement, or ones on parole or such - or terrorism-related individuals enter the country freely just because they got a paper-cut.

In general this proposal should only target people who cannot get the medical treatment in their own nation. And only treatments that are medically necessary, rather than cosmetic surgeries. Getting treatment for a sickness that is incurable in your own nation? Sounds fair. Getting a cosmetic surgery that is illegal in your nation? Sounds insane. And it gets even more insane when parents can make the decisions on behalf of their child.

[Bears Armed]

OOC; Section 5, as currently worded, contradicts the resolution #114 'On Female Genital Mutilation' which insists that member nations criminalize travel abroad for that "operation".