[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] - Freedom to Seek Care

[Araraukar]

Proposal thread.

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

Violation: Contradiction

This...

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

...violates GA #53, Epidemic Response Act clause 3) d., which says "STRONGLY URGES all member nations enact immediate measures to combat a local outbreak while it is still in the incipient stages, including, but not limited to, the following ... Quarantining infected individuals in their homes or in hospitals", GA #76, Standardised Passport Act second Affirms clause, which says "AFFIRMS that any national of a member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake, for reasons of medical quarantine, where there is reason to believe the terms of the visa are likely to be violated or if there is reason to believe the visa was obtained fraudulently" (relevant part underlined), as well as GA #389, Rights of the Quarantined, clause 4) b., which says "Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability ... move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location",

Also, this...

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

...internally contradicts the proposal's own clause Section 7, which says "SECTION 7: Clarifies that no nation is required to accept foreign medical patients under this measure", as well as externally contradicts GA #76, Standardised Passport Act (same section as quoted earlier), which allows member nations to require a visa for entering the nation, and earlier in that resolution, the definition describes " a "Visa" as a document issued by a receiving nations allowing a foreign citizen entry into that nation, subject to terms and conditions (made clear to those wishing to acquire a visa)", which together can be reasonably read as 1) making a visa mandatory to enter the nation, as well as 2) forbidding medical tourism in the terms and conditions of the visa, as is the case in at least some RL countries with universal healthcare (Canada as one example, if memory serves).

EDIT: Removed the "AT VOTE" from thread title, as it's not been at vote for a while now.

[Wrapper]

Ahem. It's "Seek Care", not "Seed Care". You and your affinity for plants....

[Separatist Peoples]

Is there any reason this challenge had to wait until it went to vote? If I remember correctly, the author did not submit the most recent draft. Is that what happened?

[Wrapper]

Actually, quarantine was partially addressed at one point, but by the time it was submitted, it was taken out:

viewtopic.php?p=32390943#p32390943

Also,the author did not have the most recent draft in the OP until prompted to do so.

[Separatist Peoples]

Actually, quarantine was partially addressed at one point, but by the time it was submitted, it was taken out:

viewtopic.php?p=32390943#p32390943

Also,the author did not have the most recent draft in the OP until prompted to do so.

I just want to know who bears the blame for a last minute challenge. *grumps*

I see the first challenge. The last one doesn't seem to apply. Internally contradictory proposals aren't illegal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The Section 1 / quarantine challenge seems to hold some water.

The Section 3 vs. §7 & GAR #76 challenge does not, in my view: the clarification that nations aren't required to let in every single medical tourist just means you can keep some of them out for unrelated legitimate reasons. The bar on discriminating solely against medical tourists doesn't mean every single medical tourist will pass all of the other qualifications for entry. It's analogous to writing, "Nations must not discriminate against incoming travelers based solely on their past military service; but nations are not required to let in every single former soldier." In other words, military service may not be held against a prospective entrant, and that's it. Some former soldiers will be eligible for entry based on the legitimate qualifications, and others will not. Clearly the ones that are ineligible for other reasons may be denied entry. If we have a "summary judgment" button, I would dismiss this part.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Internally contradictory proposals aren't illegal.

What the heck? There exist numerous mod rulings that internal contradiction is illegal, not to mention the opinions of two GenSec members. It appears that GenSec itself is internally contradictory over whether internal contradiction is illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Internally contradictory proposals aren't illegal.

This is correct. The ruleset does not provide for the removal of internally contradictory proposals. The Contradiction rule states: Proposals which conflict with explicit clauses within an active resolution will be removed.

Resolutions at vote and proposals are necessarily not active resolutions.

[States of Glory WA Office]

The ruleset does not provide for the removal of internally contradictory proposals.

I agree completely, which is why I was baffled at first that BA and Bananaistan stated that internal contradiction was illegal. That said, the numerous Mod precedent, while not binding, is difficult to dismiss out of hand. I'd appreciate a clear and consistent ruling on this issue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That said, the numerous Mod precedent, while not binding, is difficult to dismiss out of hand.

I, for one, see no difference between the applicability of the moderator precedent from the post-Enodian period and the applicability of moderator precedent before the abolition of the Enodian protocols. We have a new ruleset. The moderator rulings are just as irrelevant as the rulings from the ruleset that predated our old ruleset.

EDIT: A number of clarifications are necessary. Where there are things like undefined terms or unclear ideas ('metagaming' for example), precedent can help to clarify the meaning of those terms or ideas. Of course, when there are very clearly set out tests and terms, e.g. here, there is no need for precedent. To borrow an phrase from Posner, 'no theory is required to determine how many Senators each state may have'. Here, no precedent is required to the scope of contradiction. It's scope is clearly defined in the text of the rule and it seems clear to me that one must abandon whole-cloth the idea of 'interpretation' along with the ruleset itself if one were to simply ignore what the ruleset states in making one's decision.

[Araraukar]

Ahem. It's "Seek Care", not "Seed Care". You and your affinity for plants....

Fixed. And while I swear that was unintentional, at the time of writing this up, I was actually talking about the PPU hivemind with someone...

Is there any reason this challenge had to wait until it went to vote? If I remember correctly, the author did not submit the most recent draft. Is that what happened?

I don't know why others didn't submit one, I did it as soon as I noticed there being something wrong with it. I just hadn't paid it much attention and then it sneaked into the voting stage overnight.

I see the first challenge. The last one doesn't seem to apply. Internally contradictory proposals aren't illegal.

The last one isn't only self-contradictory, it also contradicts GA #76 (in my opinion; GenSec can feel free to disagree as always), as mentioned in the challenge, though as SoG pointed out, self-contradiction has been ruled illegal before.

[Imperium Anglorum]

self-contradiction has been ruled illegal before.

And Committees were illegal under the Enodian Protocols. There are no readings of the contradiction rule which would cover internal contradiction. To coach it in real world terms, this is a new statute, stare decisis does not apply. Past precedent does not matter when the interpretations upon which those precedents were built no longer exist. The current ruleset does not include internal contradiction. To include it would be to make up new rules outside the current ruleset.

[Araraukar]

To coach it in real world terms, this is a new statute, stare decisis does not apply.

You can stare at decisions about new statues as much as you want.

GenSec's opinion is the one that matters.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GenSec's opinion is the one that matters.

No. It doesn't. The current ruleset does not include internal contradiction. To include it would be to make up new rules outside the current ruleset. Members should be dismissed if they do so without the same broad consensus that accompanies any change in the ruleset.

[Separatist Peoples]

Internally contradictory proposals aren't illegal.

What the heck? There exist numerous mod rulings that internal contradiction is illegal, not to mention the opinions of two GenSec members. It appears that GenSec itself is internally contradictory over whether internal contradiction is illegal.

First one doesn't rule internal contradiction illegal, it just states that the mods could use their discretion for duplication. Frankly, I don't see how it's an internal contradiction when Ard specifically references existing resolutions as that which is contradicted. The second one isn't a ruling, as it wasn't dispositive as a reason. The third also isn't dispositive. It doesn't look as though the internal contradiction was a legality assessment as much as a critique, as the previous portion of that assessment cited specific rules, while the internal contradiction did not. The last one, while persuasive, ultimately doesn't rely on Internal Contradiction as a reason for calling something illegal, merely on it possibly being a better citation. Either way, it wasn't a ruling. That two GenSec members disagree is irrelevant, as it takes twice that to make a ruling.

It's worth noting that all this "precedent", which is mostly not in ruling form and pretty simple to call mere dicta, came from one inactive mod from no less than three years ago.

Lastly, there's no normative reason to prevent internal contradiction. Interpretations as to what a resolution does to determine if there are contradiction or duplication issues look at other proposals, not at internal ones. If it passes that an internally contradictory resolution could create conflict with a future proposal, an internal contradiction could be resolved for the purposes of determining what a future proposal conflicts with using standard interpretive canons. In this case, there isn't a need to look beyond the ruleset for a solution. Internally contradictory proposals are stupid, but not illegal.

[Bananaistan]

Lastly, there's no normative reason to prevent internal contradiction. Interpretations as to what a resolution does to determine if there are contradiction or duplication issues look at other proposals, not at internal ones. If it passes that an internally contradictory resolution could create conflict with a future proposal, an internal contradiction could be resolved for the purposes of determining what a future proposal conflicts with using standard interpretive canons. In this case, there isn't a need to look beyond the ruleset for a solution. Internally contradictory proposals are stupid, but not illegal.

Any chance you could translate this to English?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Lastly, there's no normative reason to prevent internal contradiction. Interpretations as to what a resolution does to determine if there are contradiction or duplication issues look at other proposals, not at internal ones. If it passes that an internally contradictory resolution could create conflict with a future proposal, an internal contradiction could be resolved for the purposes of determining what a future proposal conflicts with using standard interpretive canons. In this case, there isn't a need to look beyond the ruleset for a solution. Internally contradictory proposals are stupid, but not illegal.

Any chance you could translate this to English?

( Perhaps a translation; clarify, Sep, if there are any errors, I think I've read enough of your writing to get at what you mean. )

There's no moral reason to prevent internal contradiction. [Anyway,] contradiction issues look to other proposals, not internally. If they cause conflict with a future proposal, internal contradiction can be resolved using standard interpretative rules. There is no need to look beyond the ruleset for a solution. Internally contradictory proposals are stupid, but not illegal.

Ed. note – I broadly agree with Sep's post. More relevantly, however, I don't think moderator precedent applies in any way. The precedent is built around a different rule which was significantly more broad than the rule as it is today. The precedent doesn't apply in that the test formerly used has been replaced by a test specified in the ruleset. Internal contradiction falls outside of that test. Where contradictions emerge between precedents and how the law currently is, the law wins.

[Separatist Peoples]

Any chance you could translate this to English?

( Perhaps a translation; clarify, Sep, if there are any errors, I think I've read enough of your writing to get at what you mean though. )

There's no moral reason to prevent internal contradiction. Contradiction issues look to other proposals, not internally. If they cause conflict with a future proposal, internal contradiction can be resolved using standard interpretative rules. There is no need to look beyond the ruleset for a solution. Internally contradictory proposals are stupid, but not illegal.

He said it like a caveman, but IA got it right.

[Imperium Anglorum]

He said it like a caveman, but IA got it right.

Dispositive isn't even a real English word. >:P

[Separatist Peoples]

He said it like a caveman, but IA got it right.

Dispositive isn't even a real English word. >:P

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispositive

Dispositive: relating to or bringing about the settlement of an issue.

Your dispositive argument is the one that settles the issue. Something that is not dispositive is not a fact that resolves the issue.

Even if it's legal terminology, it's contextually obvious.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I've interpreted your use of the word not as 'relating to or bringing about the settlement of an issue', but rather, 'producing a final settlement or determination', which is marked 'in US law'. Certainly, both interpretations could apply. Clarified.

From the Oxford Dictionary of English,

dispositive |dɪsˈpɒzətɪv|
adjective
relating to or bringing about the settlement of an issue or the disposition of property: such litigation will rarely be dispositive of any question.
• (in Scots and US law) dealing with the disposition of property by deed or will: the testator had to make his signature after making the dispositive provisions.
• (in US law) producing a final settlement or determination.

[Separatist Peoples]

I've interpreted your use of the word not as 'relating to', but rather, 'relating to the final settlement of', which is marked 'in US law'. Certainly, both interpretations could apply.

dispositive |dɪsˈpɒzətɪv|
adjective
relating to or bringing about the settlement of an issue or the disposition of property: such litigation will rarely be dispositive of any question.
• (in Scots and US law) dealing with the disposition of property by deed or will: the testator had to make his signature after making the dispositive provisions.
• (in US law) producing a final settlement or determination.

I've been using it as the latter, so we're both using it the same way.

[Araraukar]

He said it like a caveman, but IA got it right.

A welcome change from the usual, and us normal (non-lawyer) people are thankful to IA for the translation.

[Separatist Peoples]

He said it like a caveman, but IA got it right.

A welcome change from the usual, and us normal (non-lawyer) people are thankful to IA for the translation.

Take a law student and put him into a quasi-judicial position involving legal analysis and opinion writing, then complain when he uses legal terms...I ask you, what is this forum coming to?

[Araraukar]

Take a law student and put him into a quasi-judicial position involving legal analysis and opinion writing, then complain when he uses legal terms...I ask you, what is this forum coming to?

It's a good training ground for you for when you need to speak with clients in the future. They'll be giving you the blank looks in person that we're giving verbally, and deliberately misunderstand anything Latin you throw at them.