[DRAFT] Convention on Stem Cell Research

[Imperial Polk County]

Drane enters the debate hall, a marked up copy of the proposal already in his hand. "Sorry, but I had to educate myself on this before I could speak to it. My one issue is clause 5. Instead of encouraging nations to conduct adult stem cell research, I'd rather see a clause that prevents nations from outlawing adult stem cell research. Do that, and I will wholeheartedly support this proposal."

This is already done in clause five. Are you opposed to the encouragement of adult stem cell research?

Drane sighs. "I'm sorry, is it my accent or something else?" He speaks more slowly. "Instead of encouraging nations to conduct adult stem cell research, I would rather this clause prevent nations from outlawing adult stem cell research."

[United Massachusetts]

This is already done in clause five. Are you opposed to the encouragement of adult stem cell research?

Drane sighs. "I'm sorry, is it my accent or something else?" He speaks more slowly. "Instead of encouraging nations to conduct adult stem cell research, I would rather this clause prevent nations from outlawing adult stem cell research."

"I meant clause four. Apologies, good sir. But my question still stands."

[Imperial Polk County]

"No, ambassador, clause 4 doesn't deal with all sources of adult stem cells, it-- oh, I think see the problem here. May I suggest you look up the definition of 'adult stem cell'? Because one can harvest adult stem cells not only from adults, but also from juveniles and from other sources like amniotic fluid or umbilical cord blood. And, there's no reason, no medical or moral reason, that researchers can't use such sources to perform such research."

[United Massachusetts]

"No, ambassador, clause 4 doesn't deal with all sources of adult stem cells, it-- oh, I think see the problem here. May I suggest you look up the definition of 'adult stem cell'? Because one can harvest adult stem cells not only from adults, but also from juveniles and from other sources like amniotic fluid or umbilical cord blood. And, there's no reason, no medical or moral reason, that researchers can't use such sources to perform such research."

"I see, Ambassador. Thank you. I'll amend the draft."

[Stoskavanya]

Embryonic =/= adult.

Oh shoot, my bad.

So to get the basis of this draft, you think we have a moral obligation to research stem cells due to its potential medical benefits, so you require that it is legalized in all WA member nations?

[United Massachusetts]

Embryonic =/= adult.

Oh shoot, my bad.

So to get the basis of this draft, you think we have a moral obligation to research stem cells due to its potential medical benefits, so you require that it is legalized in all WA member nations?

"In essence, I believe that embryonic stem cell research should be a matter legislated on by nations themselves, whereas adult stem cell research ought to be promoted by this community."

[Stoskavanya]

"In essence, I believe that embryonic stem cell research should be a matter legislated on by nations themselves, whereas adult stem cell research ought to be promoted by this community."

Well with due polishing I will support this proposal, though I am still skeptical about whether any nation actually bans adult stem cell research and the necessity of the proposal.

[Liagolas]

On the issue of embryonic stem cell research, it seems unlikely that a prohibition would violate anybody's freedom of conscience. Nobody really believes that there is a moral duty for individuals to research embryonic stem cells -- in other words, that it is immoral not to be an embryonic stem cell researcher. On the contrary, a great number of people believe they're duty-bound not to engage in such research.

"That does seem to be the case," the Mouth of the Dominion assents with a nod. "A person may believe there is a moral duty to do all in one's power to heal the sick and cure disease, but it is the difficulty of the Dominion to imagine a person who would believe they are at moral fault for not doing so by way of embryonic stem cell research... should such a person believe a ban on thus is immoral, they would most likely blame the nation and its policymakers rather than hold themselves at fault..."

Suddenly looking troubled, the Mouth crosses its arms and adds, "But then... why would a person who believes there is moral fault in performing embryonic stem cell research blame themselves if they are obligated by the state? Is abstention considered less morally odious than participation? If not, then it is the supposition of the Dominion that this resolution would still be protecting some persons' freedom of conscience and not others."

In short, we seem to agree on the definition of freedom of conscience while disagreeing on its application.

"That does indeed seem to be the case," the Dominion assents with a nod. "Of course, it is the acknowledgment of the Dominion that this entire discussion is a bit alien to itself, what with speaking of individuals' consciences. But so long as it is an observer, the Dominion sees no reason it cannot accept the terms of discussion in order to engage and improve the draft."

I don't believe a proposal has ever been removed for a category violation for being "underprotective" of human rights.

"Hm, that was the thought of the Dominion. Human Rights may yet be an option for this proposal."

It pauses, drums its fingers on the desk, plays with its sunglasses. "Unless, perhaps, some case can be made that there is an unequal protection of Human Rights? But as we seem to have agreed, a failure to protect is not equivalent to a direct violation." The Mouth shrugs. "It is the confession of the Dominion that it is probably ill-suited to passing judgment on such a question, itself having little cognizance of individual conscience and moral sensibility."

[United Massachusetts]

"I could resolve this issue by reforming the other clauses and preamble one way or another. So, friends: for what category shall I write this?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I could resolve this issue by reforming the other clauses and preamble one way or another. So, friends: for what category shall I write this?"

OOC: If you want to be able to limit research, MD is the way to go. If you want to protect the right of researchers to morally object, HR is the way to go. Its your call as to what you want to cut loose.

[Auralia]

"I could resolve this issue by reforming the other clauses and preamble one way or another. So, friends: for what category shall I write this?"

OOC: If you want to be able to limit research, MD is the way to go. If you want to protect the right of researchers to morally object, HR is the way to go. Its your call as to what you want to cut loose.

To reiterate, simply allowing member states the freedom whether or not to restrict embryonic stem cell research is not moral decency. "Requires member states to restrict ESCR" would be moral decency. "Recommends that member states restrict ESCR" would be moral decency. "Permits member states to legalize, regulate, and prohibit ESCR" is not moral decency, because blockers are not moral decency -- they don't fall under any category and shouldn't be considered for the purposes of category analysis.

This proposal legalizes and promotes certain kinds of stem cell research. That's Health -- Research. This proposal also protects conscience rights of researchers. That's Human Rights. It's not clear to me which is "stronger" for the purposes of category analysis, but that should be the category of this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: If you want to be able to limit research, MD is the way to go. If you want to protect the right of researchers to morally object, HR is the way to go. Its your call as to what you want to cut loose.

To reiterate, simply allowing member states the freedom whether or not to restrict embryonic stem cell research is not moral decency. "Requires member states to restrict ESCR" would be moral decency. "Recommends that member states restrict ESCR" would be moral decency. "Permits member states to legalize, regulate, and prohibit ESCR" is not moral decency, because blockers are not moral decency -- they don't fall under any category and shouldn't be considered for the purposes of category analysis.

This proposal legalizes and promotes certain kinds of stem cell research. That's Health -- Research. This proposal also protects conscience rights of researchers. That's Human Rights. It's not clear to me which is "stronger" for the purposes of category analysis, but that should be the category of this proposal.

OOC: That interpretation would allow any proposal in any category restrict something outside the ken of the category. You could have a proposal that deals entirely with landmines and slip a blocker on stem cell research in. I'm not buying that as an option.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: That interpretation would allow any proposal in any category restrict something outside the ken of the category. You could have a proposal that deals entirely with landmines and slip a blocker on stem cell research in. I'm not buying that as an option.

OOC
I think that that sort of mismatch was ruled illegal at least once by a Mod, but very probably back while we still using the Jolt forum rather than here where the ruling could [potentially] be found.
In any case, I agree about "not buying that as an option" and would only accept blocking clauses in matters relevant to the Category of the proposal involved.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: That interpretation would allow any proposal in any category restrict something outside the ken of the category. You could have a proposal that deals entirely with landmines and slip a blocker on stem cell research in. I'm not buying that as an option.

OOC
I think that that sort of mismatch was ruled illegal at least once by a Mod, but very probably back while we still using the Jolt forum rather than here where the ruling could [potentially] be found.
In any case, I agree about "not buying that as an option" and would only accept blocking clauses in matters relevant to the Category of the proposal involved.

As Auralia noted, though, blockers don't have a category, as they merely reserve powers to nations. I argue that blocking clauses ought to be instead related to the topic and hand, rather than the category.

[Aclion]

OOC: That interpretation would allow any proposal in any category restrict something outside the ken of the category. You could have a proposal that deals entirely with landmines and slip a blocker on stem cell research in. I'm not buying that as an option.

OOC
I think that that sort of mismatch was ruled illegal at least once by a Mod, but very probably back while we still using the Jolt forum rather than here where the ruling could [potentially] be found.
In any case, I agree about "not buying that as an option" and would only accept blocking clauses in matters relevant to the Category of the proposal involved.

It is impossible for a blocker to be related to a category, as blockers don't have any effect on member nations. This is an insurmountable standard, which has never been applied by GenSec on resolutions before.

[Auralia]

To reiterate, simply allowing member states the freedom whether or not to restrict embryonic stem cell research is not moral decency. "Requires member states to restrict ESCR" would be moral decency. "Recommends that member states restrict ESCR" would be moral decency. "Permits member states to legalize, regulate, and prohibit ESCR" is not moral decency, because blockers are not moral decency -- they don't fall under any category and shouldn't be considered for the purposes of category analysis.

This proposal legalizes and promotes certain kinds of stem cell research. That's Health -- Research. This proposal also protects conscience rights of researchers. That's Human Rights. It's not clear to me which is "stronger" for the purposes of category analysis, but that should be the category of this proposal.

OOC: That interpretation would allow any proposal in any category restrict something outside the ken of the category. You could have a proposal that deals entirely with landmines and slip a blocker on stem cell research in. I'm not buying that as an option.

I think it's reasonable to require that blockers be linked to the topic of a proposal, but I don't think this is technically required by the current ruleset.

I do recall discussion during the rules consortium on a proposed rule that would require proposals to deal with a single issue exclusively. That would cover this situation, but I don't remember it making its way into the ruleset. Perhaps GenSec should revive discussion on such a rule.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That interpretation would allow any proposal in any category restrict something outside the ken of the category. You could have a proposal that deals entirely with landmines and slip a blocker on stem cell research in. I'm not buying that as an option.

I think it's reasonable to require that blockers be linked to the topic of a proposal, but I don't think this is technically required by the current ruleset.

I do recall discussion during the rules consortium on a proposed rule that would require proposals to deal with a single issue exclusively. That would cover this situation, but I don't remember it making its way into the ruleset. Perhaps GenSec should revive discussion on such a rule.

In relevant part:

Category: Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category.

The second sentence covers my interpretation, as far as I'm concerned.

[Aclion]

I think it's reasonable to require that blockers be linked to the topic of a proposal, but I don't think this is technically required by the current ruleset.

I do recall discussion during the rules consortium on a proposed rule that would require proposals to deal with a single issue exclusively. That would cover this situation, but I don't remember it making its way into the ruleset. Perhaps GenSec should revive discussion on such a rule.

In relevant part:

Category: Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category.

The second sentence covers my interpretation, as far as I'm concerned.

So blocker clauses are illegal now, as is any resolution that has clauses other that that of their category.
Lovely.

[Auralia]

I think it's reasonable to require that blockers be linked to the topic of a proposal, but I don't think this is technically required by the current ruleset.

I do recall discussion during the rules consortium on a proposed rule that would require proposals to deal with a single issue exclusively. That would cover this situation, but I don't remember it making its way into the ruleset. Perhaps GenSec should revive discussion on such a rule.

In relevant part:

Category: Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category.

The second sentence covers my interpretation, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Aclion that this interpretation would effectively ban blocker clauses, since they cannot fall under a category. But blocker clauses are explicitly permitted by other parts of the ruleset, so I don't think this interpretation is consistent with the rules.

[Separatist Peoples]

In relevant part:



The second sentence covers my interpretation, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with Aclion that this interpretation would effectively ban blocker clauses, since they cannot fall under a category. But blocker clauses are explicitly permitted by other parts of the ruleset, so I don't think this interpretation is consistent with the rules.

As usual, Aclion is wrong. Blockers are explicitly considered in the rules and past legislation. They merely need to be consistent with the category, per the category rule.

[Aclion]

I agree with Aclion that this interpretation would effectively ban blocker clauses, since they cannot fall under a category. But blocker clauses are explicitly permitted by other parts of the ruleset, so I don't think this interpretation is consistent with the rules.

As usual, Aclion is wrong. Blockers are explicitly considered in the rules and past legislation. They merely need to be consistent with the category, per the category rule.

It is impossible for blockers to be consistent with the category because they only prevent the WA from passing future legislation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Isn't this precisely the domain of Health/Bioethics?

Health -- A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.
...
Bioethics: Just because escaped superbugs might cause one or two silly little epidemics somewhere unimportant, people are being scared into putting the brakes on Science! You say it's setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research. I say it's the free individual's civil rights freedoms being chipped away by the nanny state!

Pretty mild restrictions, all told, but since you're preventing the WA from mandating the legality of ESCR world(s)wide, with a few minor tweaks (probably the same kind you'd have if you went for MD, but without the at-vote stigma of openly reducing civil liberties), I wouldn't see a category or AoE problem with it.

Or are you so set on making a pure blocker that even Bioethics is a rights reduction too far?

[Aclion]

Or are you so set on making a pure blocker that even Bioethics is a rights reduction too far?

SP is the one hung up about the the blocker, not UM.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Isn't this precisely the domain of Health/Bioethics?

Health -- A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.
...
Bioethics: Just because escaped superbugs might cause one or two silly little epidemics somewhere unimportant, people are being scared into putting the brakes on Science! You say it's setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research. I say it's the free individual's civil rights freedoms being chipped away by the nanny state!

Pretty mild restrictions, all told, but since you're preventing the WA from mandating the legality of ESCR world(s)wide, with a few minor tweaks (probably the same kind you'd have if you went for MD, but without the at-vote stigma of openly reducing civil liberties), I wouldn't see a category or AoE problem with it.

Or are you so set on making a pure blocker that even Bioethics is a rights reduction too far?

I disagree. The description on Bioethics seems to have a restriction on the rights of individual researchers, where this seems to do the opposite by permitting them to refuse to do such research.

[Auralia]

((OOC: UM, I'd say the best way forward for this proposal -- both from a legality and a likelihood of passage POV -- is to consolidate it as Health -- Research.

The best way to do this is by adding some more stuff relating to adult stem cell research. Provide WA funding for it, create a centralized repository for discoveries, that sort of thing. Make it clear in the preamble that the primary purpose of this proposal is to advance stem cell research, with the blocker on WA regulation of embryonic stem cell research and the associated grant of conscience rights merely a secondary goal.))