[PASSED] Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[New Waldensia]

Work in progress.

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 their citizens permanent residents from seeking medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not medically quarantined, incarcerated, or subjects of a criminal trial. currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by standing World Assembly legislation,

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 32: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, particularly those with communicable diseases. including refusal to accept non-resident patients,

SECTION 43: Requires member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

SECTION 54: Prohibits member nations from prosecuting citizens taking legal action against permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad that are restricted, or banned within their own borders but that have not been banned by the General World 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.‎, subject to standing World Assembly legislation,

SECTION 65: 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.‎ Declares that patients seeking to travel to a foreign nation for the purpose of obtaining medical care or treatment are financially responsible 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 76: Clarifies that no nation is required to accept provide medical care to foreign non-resident medical patients under this measure, and that foreign medical patients can be turned away for other reasons.

The sections can be re-arranged in a different order once the language is finalized. For ease of drafting, I'll leave them as-is (order-wise) for the time being.

[Fauxia]

"To me, it looks ready to submit, and judging by the popularity it enjoyed, and that I see no rule violations, it should pass, easily."

[Araraukar]

"To me, it looks ready to submit, and judging by the popularity it enjoyed, and that I see no rule violations, it should pass, easily."

OOC: Considering that the last 5 or 6 of your "bets" and predictions have been dead wrong, I would honestly stop giving such advice. Also, just because you can't see problems, doesn't mean no-one can.

---

OOC: New Waldensia, I suggest you take a very good look at Tinfect's rewrite of your draft. Her version sorts out the points of contention that she and I have been making, as well as makes some wordings clearer and cuts down on the number of clauses needed to get your intention across. (The shorter a proposal is, the more likely people are to read through it before deciding which way to vote.)

[Tinfect]

OOC: Considering that the last 5 or 6 of your "bets" and predictions have been dead wrong, I would honestly stop giving such advice. Also, just because you can't see problems, doesn't mean no-one can.

OOC:
Damn straight.

OOC: New Waldensia, I suggest you take a very good look at Tinfect's rewrite of your draft. Her version sorts out the points of contention that she and I have been making, as well as makes some wordings clearer and cuts down on the number of clauses needed to get your intention across. (The shorter a proposal is, the more likely people are to read through it before deciding which way to vote.)

To be fair, NW has used some of my wordings and clauses in the most recent draft.

[Araraukar]

OOC: To be fair, NW has used some of my wordings and clauses in the most recent draft.

OOC: Ah, they changed it again. Now if we can get him/her to let go of the incisions (sections, that is - if someone's confused, look up the definitions for "section" and think of "Cesarean section") and just go with regular numbering...

[Sovreignry]

OOC: To be fair, NW has used some of my wordings and clauses in the most recent draft.

OOC: Ah, they changed it again. Now if we can get him/her to let go of the incisions (sections, that is - if someone's confused, look up the definitions for "section" and think of "Cesarean section") and just go with regular numbering...

If I have to grab a jargon dictionary for a field of study just to get your point, it's not that common or likely to be offensive.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: "Section x" is a common legal term in RL legislation. However, I can remove the "offensive" word and simply do numbers.

[Araraukar]

If I have to grab a jargon dictionary for a field of study just to get your point, it's not that common or likely to be offensive.

OOC: If you need a specialist dictionary to know what "Cesarean section" means, I take it you're not very old and know little about human births in the modern clinical setting.

OOC: "Section x" is a common legal term in RL legislation. However, I can remove the "offensive" word and simply do numbers.

OOC again: I know it can be common in RL legislation. RL legislation, however, usually is also many pages long, whereas we have a very limited number of marks (which includes spacing and list code and such) at our use. Also, in RL, legislation is usually voted on by politicians who at least theoretically have had some training before doing so, whereas in NS the WA legislation is voted on mostly by those who have nothing to do with the side of WA that makes the laws. Furthermore, in RL, the laws are mostly crafted for the use of a single nation or a subdivision of one. The UNmentionable organization in RL isn't that good a model for WA either, as WA resolutions are actually binding (if you're a member state, your stats are changed whether you want them or not).

Now, both of you seem to think I somehow find "section" offensive, which isn't true. I just find it annoying and, considering the surgical use of the word, amusing in the wrong way. (I honestly would complain less with it if you actually called the clauses "incisions". )

[New Waldensia]

I just find it annoying and, considering the surgical use of the word, amusing in the wrong way.

OOC: it must be a British thing. In my neck of the woods, the word "section" is used just as often to refer to an area of land (specifically, 640 acres, or one square mile). ;-)

[Araraukar]

OOC: it must be a British thing.

OOC: I'm not British. Nor American. Nor any other place where English is a main language. And I know "section" has a lot of other meanings, which is just one more reason not to use it.

[Sovreignry]

If I have to grab a jargon dictionary for a field of study just to get your point, it's not that common or likely to be offensive.

OOC: If you need a specialist dictionary to know what "Cesarean section" means, I take it you're not very old and know little about human births in the modern clinical setting.

OOC: Or, I do know what a C-Section is and still don’t see how this is such a sticking point. If you honestly believe that the word is referring to C-Sections every time it’s used in the draft I don’t know how to help you with that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: If you need a specialist dictionary to know what "Cesarean section" means, I take it you're not very old and know little about human births in the modern clinical setting.

I'll quote this every time I need to dismiss arguments against the use of legal terminology in a legislative institution.

[Aclion]

OOC: it must be a British thing.

OOC: I'm not British. Nor American. Nor any other place where English is a main language. And I know "section" has a lot of other meanings, which is just one more reason not to use it.

The standard, and by far most common usage, is a distinct subdivision of something, whether it's sections of a town, an organization, or a document.

[Araraukar]

I'll quote this every time I need to dismiss arguments against the use of legal terminology in a legislative institution.

OOC: Only if you don't alter the quote at all. (In which case it'll only be relevant if your legislative language includes the words "Cesarean section"...)

The standard, and by far most common usage, is a distinct subdivision of something

Yes. And?

[Fauxia]

So is anything going to come from this.

[Araraukar]

So is anything going to come from this.

OOC: *puts you into the Naughty Corner* Now shush. Good resolutions come from not hurrying to submit before the proposal is ready for submission. We don't get have GenSec's exact reasoning on which bits were illegal in the first try, because hurricanes.

[Fauxia]

So is anything going to come from this.

OOC: *puts you into the Naughty Corner* Now shush. Good resolutions come from not hurrying to submit before the proposal is ready for submission. We don't get have GenSec's exact reasoning on which bits were illegal in the first try, because hurricanes.

Naughty? Me? Have you ever met me?

The answer is yes, btw.

[New Waldensia]

So is anything going to come from this.

Hopefully next week. Doubt I'll have time this weekend to get it going again.

[Fauxia]

So is anything going to come from this.

Hopefully next week. Doubt I'll have time this weekend to get it going again.

Ok gotcha.

[New Waldensia]

Latest rendition.

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 even with 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 or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

The General Assembly:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from seeking medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by standing World Assembly legislation,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, including refusal to accept non-resident patients,

3: Requires member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, subject to standing World Assembly legislation,

5: Declares that patients seeking to travel to a foreign nation for the purpose of obtaining medical care or treatment are financially responsible 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.‎

6: Clarifies that no nation is required to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients under this measure.

Now if we can get him/her to let go of the incisions

He.

[Fauxia]

Again, edit it into the top post (beat you to it Ara)

[New Waldensia]

Again, edit it into the top post (beat you to it Ara)

OOC: yeah, got busy with work and remembered halfway through the day that I didn't get that done. (lol)

[New Waldensia]

Barring further points of conflict being raised, I will submit this soon.

[Araraukar]

OOC post because still in too much pain to do this nicely in IC.

Latest revision:

I suggest removing everything but the most latest draft from the first post. You don't want the new vote to be marred by the unsuccessful one. Same goes for thread title.

Freedom to Seek Care

"Freedom to Seek Medical Care", maybe? To make the title more consistent with contents.

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,‎

I would still make this be more about "medical care not available in their own nation", rather than make it sound that you want to allow people to bypass national laws (which are often for their own protection) on healthcare. Remember, your aim is to help people unable to get medical care in their own nation, to get it at their own expense in another nation.

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat even with the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

This, what is this about?

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,

I'd change the "many nations" to "some nations" or "that there are nations", because using "many nations" makes it sound like you're saying the majority of WA nations have crappy healthcare. I know you're not, but that's what a quick reading makes it look like.

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

But experimental treatments are experimental, because they haven't been approved as standard treatments, and that's often because they can cause as much if not more harm than good. Also, if you get shitty treatment elsewhere and then come back home and remain a chronic patient the rest of your life (as can happen with RL medical tourism), it's your home nation that's paying the costs.

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

I'd add something about them accepting the risks of treatment abroad.

The General Assembly:

This or "the World Assembly" should be at the start of this whole thing, and to separate preamble from active clauses, you could put "hereby" here.

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from seeking medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by standing World Assembly legislation,

This still needs to make it clearer that "seeking" means "leaving one's own nation to get treatment elsewhere".

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, including refusal to accept non-resident patients,

I'd add the word "complete" between "including" and "refusal" in that last bit. That'll make it even more obvious.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, subject to standing World Assembly legislation,

Again, I know what you mean, but go for lowest common denominator. Rather than "subject to standing", I'd make it something like "as long as World Assembly resolutions have not been violated".

6: Clarifies that no nation is required to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients under this measure.

I'd make this more along the lines of "Clarifies that nothing in this resolution requires member nations to provide medical care to non-residents", or including an exception to account for other resolutions. Something to make it clear that while this one doesn't require it, others may.

And the whole thing is still missing the bits about "seeking only essential/medically necessary care" and "waiving their rights to require their own nation to pay for the aftercare of medical treatment obtained in other nations". That last one especially would be helpful in getting some reluctants to side with this, because in some cases the aftercare can cost just as much if not more than primary care.

[New Waldensia]

Latest revision.

Freedom to Seek Medical 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 even with the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that many some 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 or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

The General Assembly hereby:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from seeking leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not currently detained for medical or legal reasons, in addition to any restrictions imposed by standing World Assembly legislation legislation passed by the General Assembly,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of non-resident patients, including complete refusal to accept non-resident patients,

3: Requires member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, subject to standing World Assembly legislation as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

5: Declares that patients seeking to travel to a foreign nation for the purpose of obtaining medical care or treatment are financially responsible 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.‎

6: States that no nation is responsible for covering future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure.

7: Clarifies that no nation is required by this resolution to provide medical care to non-resident medical patientsunder this measure above any requirements imposed by legislation passed by the General Assembly.

Boy, when Araraukar's signature says "wielder of the Proposal Scalpel™ and a flamethrower", that's no joke!