[Draft] Prosthetic Body Parts Availability Act

[Aureumterra]

OOC: I swear I looked at every sing WA resolution before posting this, so if this turns out to be done before, then I will smack my head on my keyboard for the next 24 hours wondering why my life sucks.

NOTING that prosthetic body parts are a need of many.

FURTHER NOTING that such parts are not available to all who need them.

The World Assembly HEREBY,

DEFINES prosthetic body parts, for the purpose of this proposal, as an artificial device that replaces a missing body part on an organic sapient, which may be lost through trauma, disease, or congenital conditions, which are intended to restore the normal functions of the missing body part.

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:
I. Prosthetics shall not be charged for on the spot.
a. Prosthetics can be paid for on the spot, if the consumer wishes.
b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt if needed.

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer.
a. Above amendment shall not apply is prosthetic damage is due to manufacturing or surgical defects.

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies.
a. Insurance companies must be state approved to insure prosthetics.


IV. Any defective prosthetics that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities.
a. All defective prosthetics shall be repaired or replaced for free.
b. Consumers will get a free replacement of the same quality from said company.

NOTING that prosthetic body parts are a need of many.

FURTHER NOTING that such parts are not available to all who need them.

The World Assembly HEREBY,

DEFINES prosthetic body parts, for the purpose of this proposal, as an artificial device that replaces a missing body part on an organic sapient, which may be lost through trauma, disease, or congenital conditions, which are intended to restore the normal functions of the missing body part.

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:
I. Prosthetics shall not be charged for on the spot.
a. Prosthetics can be paid for on the spot, if the consumer wishes.
b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt if needed.

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer.
a. Above amendment shall not apply is prosthetic damage is due to manufacturing or surgical defects.

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies.
a. Insurance companies must be government approved to insure prosthetics.
b. Insurance must be bought by consumer for above amendment to apply.

IV. Any defective prosthetics that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities.
a. All defective prosthetics shall be refunded 100% of the money.
b. Consumers will get a free replacement of same quality from said company.

NOTING that prosthetic body parts are a need of many.

FURTHER NOTING that such parts are not available to all who need them.

The World Assembly HEREBY,

DEFINES prosthetic body parts, for the purpose of this proposal, as an artificial device that replaces a missing body part on an organic sapient, which may be lost through trauma, disease, or congenital conditions, which are intended to restore the normal functions of the missing body part.

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:
I. Prosthetics shall not be charged for on the spot
a. Prosthetics can be payed for on the spot, if the consumer wishes
b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies
a. Insurance companies must be government approved to insure prosthetics
b. Insurance must be bought by consumer for above amendment to apply

IV. Any defective prosthetics that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities
a. All defective prosthetics shall be repaired or replaced for no cost to the consumer.
b. Consumers with prosthetic insurance will get a free replacement of same quality

[Ferret Civilization]

Furettium looked at the draft being proposed and chuckled, "A prosthetic body part is an artificial device that replaces a missing body part. I wonder at what point some sapient robotic individual would become nothing but prosthetic body parts under this. Or what to call the artificial device that is replaced by another artificial device, as it is not a missing body part. But I suppose that is some sort of 'Ship of Thesis... They-us... Theseus' philosophy that would only effect a small portion of world assembly members. I've really got nothing constructive to add, good luck though."

[Separatist Peoples]

"What you've done here is rearrange the basics of contract law for no discernible reason. I can't see how any of these changes make any difference to the consumer, and so I can't figure out what the point of this is."

[Aureumterra]

"What you've done here is rearrange the basics of contract law for no discernible reason. I can’t see how any of these changes make any difference to the consumer, and so I can't figure out what the point of this is."

OOC: This is to make sure that Prosthetics are available to all that need it in all WA member nations. Not all of these nations have the same contract laws.

[Aureumterra]

Furettium looked at the draft being proposed and chuckled, "A prosthetic body part is an artificial device that replaces a missing body part. I wonder at what point some sapient robotic individual would become nothing but prosthetic body parts under this. Or what to call the artificial device that is replaced by another artificial device, as it is not a missing body part. But I suppose that is some sort of 'Ship of Thesis... They-us... Theseus' philosophy that would only effect a small portion of world assembly members. I’ve really got nothing constructive to add, good luck though."

OOC: Added the “organic” criteria. Thanks for the feedback!

[Separatist Peoples]

"What you've done here is rearrange the basics of contract law for no discernible reason. I can’t see how any of these changes make any difference to the consumer, and so I can't figure out what the point of this is."

OOC: This is to make sure that Prosthetics are available to all that need it in all WA member nations. Not all of these nations have the same contract laws.

OOC: But you haven't succeeded.

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:
I. Prosthetics shall not be charged on the spot
a. Prosthetics can be payed on the spot, if the consumer wishes
b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt

OOC: The default in most real world contract law is that delivery of goods when not specified is at the business location of the seller, at which time performance is due unless previously determined. Removing this default requirement doesn't benefit either party, is just makes delivery more complicated, as now there is automatic ambiguity in a contract which does not clearly specify place of performance.

Further, attaching prosthetic charges to personal debt opens the buyer to a variety of liens and collection efforts, which is the last thing that a person in need of a prosthesis needs.

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer

Even if the issuing company was negligent in it's design or construction? You've eradicated any kind of recourse for individuals in the event of the seller's failure to use reasonable precautions to make a product reasonably safe.

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies
a. Insurance companies must be government approved to insure prosthetics

Most insurance companies don't require special government clearance to insure specific items, especially when they probably don't exceed tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In terms of insurance payouts, that's pennies and nickles.

b. Insurance must be bought by consumer for above amendment to apply

You've shifted the burden of manufacturing defect onto the consumer, who does not necessarily have deep pockets nor any fault in the defect, and off the party that is best suited to pay and who otherwise bears culpability.

IV. Any defective prosthesis that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities

Except they aren't liable for the damage of the defect, merely replacement. That doesn't help somebody who suffers, say, a traumatic brain injury as the result of their leg prosthesis giving out.

a. All defective prosthetics shall be refunded 100% of the money

Even if the defect can be repaired for less than the full cost of the prosthesis?

b. Consumers with prosthetic insurance will get a free replacement of same quality

Insurance companies that issue replacements don't issue free replacements. The cost is the cost of owning the insurance policy. You've kind of messed up the whole insurance policy with this.

On the whole, this is really bad. You don't seem to understand what you're doing or why you've done them.

[Aureumterra]

OOC: This is to make sure that Prosthetics are available to all that need it in all WA member nations. Not all of these nations have the same contract laws.

OOC: But you haven't succeeded.

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:
I. Prosthetics shall not be charged on the spot
a. Prosthetics can be payed on the spot, if the consumer wishes
b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt

OOC: The default in most real world contract law is that delivery of goods when not specified is at the business location of the seller, at which time performance is due unless previously determined. Removing this default requirement doesn't benefit either party, is just makes delivery more complicated, as now there is automatic ambiguity in a contract which does not clearly specify place of performance.

Further, attaching prosthetic charges to personal debt opens the buyer to a variety of liens and collection efforts, which is the last thing that a person in need of a prosthesis needs.

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer

Even if the issuing company was negligent in it's design or construction? You've eradicated any kind of recourse for individuals in the event of the seller's failure to use reasonable precautions to make a product reasonably safe.

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies
a. Insurance companies must be government approved to insure prosthetics

Most insurance companies don't require special government clearance to insure specific items, especially when they probably don't exceed tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In terms of insurance payouts, that's pennies and nickles.

b. Insurance must be bought by consumer for above amendment to apply

You've shifted the burden of manufacturing defect onto the consumer, who does not necessarily have deep pockets nor any fault in the defect, and off the party that is best suited to pay and who otherwise bears culpability.

IV. Any defective prosthesis that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities

Except they aren't liable for the damage of the defect, merely replacement. That doesn't help somebody who suffers, say, a traumatic brain injury as the result of their leg prosthesis giving out.

a. All defective prosthetics shall be refunded 100% of the money

Even if the defect can be repaired for less than the full cost of the prosthesis?

b. Consumers with prosthetic insurance will get a free replacement of same quality

Insurance companies that issue replacements don't issue free replacements. The cost is the cost of owning the insurance policy. You've kind of messed up the whole insurance policy with this.

On the whole, this is really bad. You don’t seem to understand what you're doing or why you've done them.

Only the 1st two of your arguments really make sense, the rest don’t seem valid on the basis of my proposal. I’ll edit the 1st two later.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: But you haven't succeeded.


OOC: The default in most real world contract law is that delivery of goods when not specified is at the business location of the seller, at which time performance is due unless previously determined. Removing this default requirement doesn't benefit either party, is just makes delivery more complicated, as now there is automatic ambiguity in a contract which does not clearly specify place of performance.

Further, attaching prosthetic charges to personal debt opens the buyer to a variety of liens and collection efforts, which is the last thing that a person in need of a prosthesis needs.


Even if the issuing company was negligent in it's design or construction? You've eradicated any kind of recourse for individuals in the event of the seller's failure to use reasonable precautions to make a product reasonably safe.

Most insurance companies don't require special government clearance to insure specific items, especially when they probably don't exceed tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In terms of insurance payouts, that's pennies and nickles.


You've shifted the burden of manufacturing defect onto the consumer, who does not necessarily have deep pockets nor any fault in the defect, and off the party that is best suited to pay and who otherwise bears culpability.
Except they aren't liable for the damage of the defect, merely replacement. That doesn't help somebody who suffers, say, a traumatic brain injury as the result of their leg prosthesis giving out.


Even if the defect can be repaired for less than the full cost of the prosthesis?


Insurance companies that issue replacements don't issue free replacements. The cost is the cost of owning the insurance policy. You've kind of messed up the whole insurance policy with this.

On the whole, this is really bad. You don’t seem to understand what you're doing or why you've done them.

Only the 1st two of your arguments really make sense, the rest don’t seem valid on the basis of my proposal. I’ll edit the 1st two later.

OOC: The rest of them are based on the basic concepts of tort law. If anything, they're the strongest arguments to be made. What don't you understand?

[The New California Republic]

I. Prosthetics shall not be charged on the spot

How can a prosthetic be charged? Is it a person?

a. Prosthetics can be payed on the spot, if the consumer wishes

The prosthetic gets paid? Does the prosthetic have a job then I assume?

[Aureumterra]

I. Prosthetics shall not be charged on the spot

How can a prosthetic be charged? Is it a person?

a. Prosthetics can be payed on the spot, if the consumer wishes

The prosthetic gets paid? Does the prosthetic have a job then I assume?

*Adds ‘for’ in both clauses*

[The New California Republic]

How can a prosthetic be charged? Is it a person?


The prosthetic gets paid? Does the prosthetic have a job then I assume?

*Adds ‘for’ in both clauses*

OOC: It is also "paid", not "payed".

[Separatist Peoples]

What don't you understand?

[Aureumterra]

*Adds ‘for’ in both clauses*

OOC: It is also "paid", not "payed".

OOC: Sorry, English is not my first language, I speak Icelandic.

[Aureumterra]

Only the 1st two of your arguments really make sense, the rest don’t seem valid on the basis of my proposal. I’ll edit the 1st two later.

OOC: The rest of them are based on the basic concepts of tort law. If anything, they're the strongest arguments to be made. What don't you understand?

Alright, made some edits, let me know if you find more. There is also a first draft spoiler for comparison.

[Orion Posthuman Republic]

DEFINES prosthetic body parts, for the purpose of this proposal, as an artificial device that replaces a missing body part on an organic sapient, which may be lost through trauma, disease, or congenital conditions, which are intended to restore the normal functions of the missing body part.

"Just a point of information, I suppose, but I think it's worth noting that not everyone with a prosthetic limb lost their previous one by accident," Ambassador Hunt pointed out, gesturing to his matte black cybernetic left arm. "Statistically speaking, over 95% of the prosthetic limbs manufactured in our country end up replacing perfectly healthy limbs and are designed to be better than the organic ones they replaced. Under the present definition, such devices would not be considered 'prosthetic limbs' and thus would likely be technically exempt from this resolution. That being said, I'm glad to see this issue being potentially addressed."

[Aureumterra]

DEFINES prosthetic body parts, for the purpose of this proposal, as an artificial device that replaces a missing body part on an organic sapient, which may be lost through trauma, disease, or congenital conditions, which are intended to restore the normal functions of the missing body part.

"Just a point of information, I suppose, but I think it's worth noting that not everyone with a prosthetic limb lost their previous one by accident," Ambassador Hunt pointed out, gesturing to his matte black cybernetic left arm. "Statistically speaking, over 95% of the prosthetic limbs manufactured in our country end up replacing perfectly healthy limbs and are designed to be better than the organic ones they replaced. Under the present definition, such devices would not be considered 'prosthetic limbs' and thus would likely be technically exempt from this resolution. That being said, I'm glad to see this issue being potentially addressed."

Ambassador, my concern is for those that desperately need the limbs, and that is whom the issue concerns. Thanks for the feedback, though, I will add an amendment addressing that. Ambassador Wyse replies.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The rest of them are based on the basic concepts of tort law. If anything, they're the strongest arguments to be made. What don't you understand?

Alright, made some edits, let me know if you find more. There is also a first draft spoiler for comparison.

OOC: You really, really haven't made any improvements. I'll go into greater depth.

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:
I. Prosthetics shall not be charged for on the spot.
a. Prosthetics can be paid for on the spot, if the consumer wishes.
b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt if needed.

All of my previous comments remain unaddressed. You've exposed people who are generally not financially secure to aggressive collection practices here. As such, you've made amputees more vulnerable, not less, and have not actually made prostheses more available. At all.

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer.
a. Above amendment shall not apply is prosthetic damage is due to manufacturing or surgical defects.

None of my comments have been addressed here, either.

The general rule for tort action for products is that there is strict liability. That means that, with qualified exceptions, the person who is harmed by the defect does not need to prove that the manufacturer owed the general public a duty of care, but merely that the defect exists, and that the manufacturer didn't sufficiently mitigate it. That doesn't just extend to defects that deviate from the intended design, but from designs which are themselves dangerous or harmful, or even a lack of adequate labeling.

Here, you've exculpated the manufacturer, for manufacturing defects, but no other kind of defect. Further, you've not exculpated anybody else traditionally under the aegis of products liability law: distribute, designers, etc. As such, you have denied a vulnerable population the means to secure their rights, which does not improve access to prostheses.

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies.
a. Insurance companies must be government approved to insure prosthetics.
b. Insurance must be bought by consumer for above amendment to apply.

By requiring insurance be purchased by the consumer (the end user of the prosthesis, not a reseller), you've ensured that the amputee has to pay to ensure that their prosthesis continues to work. This is pretty silly, since it is the manufacurer's responsibility to warrant their product. By passing the cost of protecting themselves to the amputee, who bears no culpability in the failure of a prosthesis, and away from the manufacturer, who bears culpability for such a failure, you've essentially turned the basic notion of fairness on it's head. People should not have to pay for the fault of the manufacturer. This is why products liability law exists.

There is an argument for people bearing the cost of their continued protection, as with car insurance or homeowner's insurance. However, this argument does not prevail in a situation where there are no risks external to the function of the product in question, as there are with cars and homes.

IV. Any defective prosthetics that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities.

Except you've exculpated the company in Section II.

a. All defective prosthetics shall be refunded 100% of the money.

You have failed to consider that a defect can be repaired for a cost that does not exceed replacement. If the defect is merely a single, inexpensive piece like a gasket or a securing strap, and not something integral like a pneumatic piston or servo, then you've created an unnecessary amount of waste, and that is bad.

b. Consumers will get a free replacement of same quality from said company.

Consumers should not get a free replacement if their product had a market value at the time of destruction that was less than the cost of a replacement. If somebody destroys personal property of yours, then under most tort laws, you only get the value of the item at the time it was destroyed, and not the cost when it was new. So, for example, if you have a toy that costs $50 new, but since you have played with it and chipped the paint and maybe broke off a piece of plastic, is only worth $35, and I destroy it, you can only get $35 for the item, not the $50 of a new replacement. The same concept applies here.

Overall, your proposal still isn't very good. You don't seem to understand the underlying legal principals at play in product liability law, and nothing you've suggested in any way makes it easier or cheaper for people to acquire prostheses. The current draft appears to be utterly unsalvageable.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause IVb. requires the word 'the' before 'same' and clause."

[Aureumterra]

Done!

[Separatist Peoples]

Done!

Ooc: yet again, you've ignored all the feedback given. None of this is an improvement.

[The New California Republic]

Done!

OOC: B...but...you didn't really change anything...

[Araraukar]

OOC: The following post is in in-character mode (with Johan Milkus as the acting ambassador while Janis is away), except where otherwise marked. So it would be nice to also get the replies in IC.

Before going into IC, though, going to post the basic question: Category and strength/AoE, please?

IC:

NOTING that prosthetic body parts are a need of many.

"A need of many" is a clumsy way of saying what I think you're trying to say, and besides, I doubt such a large portion of the population in so many WA nations is in need of prosthetics that international legislation is needed for the issue."

FURTHER NOTING that such parts are not available to all who need them.

"Maybe in your nation. In Araraukar they are part of the basic healthcare system and thus free for citizens. Which reminds me, why do you think they would not be part of basic healthcare? These are the kinds of justifications that you should put in the preamble."

The World Assembly HEREBY,

(OOC: I suggest starting the whole thing, preamble included, with "The World Assembly" and just putting "Hereby" here. Capitalizing the word is not necessary.)

DEFINES prosthetic body parts, for the purpose of this proposal, as an artificial device that replaces a missing body part on an organic sapient, which may be lost through trauma, disease, or congenital conditions, which are intended to restore the normal functions of the missing body part.

"You have mismatch of plural and singular there, and also, "device"? I don't recall a non-electric prosthetic limb being called a device. Also, "on" a person? So a prosthetic heart valve would not be a prosthetic body part???" (OOC: I suggest using "person" rather than "organic sapient".)

"Also, since you seem to have different subclauses all mashed together, I would suggest using a list instead. Right now the second "which" seems to refer to trauma, disease or congenital condition."

MANADATES member nations to enact the following amendments:

"Amendments? What are you amending? Also, amending existing resolutions is forbidden."

I. Prosthetics shall not be charged for on the spot.

"What spot? And charged? Is this proposal only meant for electric devices?"

a. Prosthetics can be paid for on the spot, if the consumer wishes.

"Again, what spot? Also, don't you mean "patient" rather than "consumer"? And in addition, you say it can be paid for on the spot, but what's the alternative payment method? And why should it cost the patient anything?"

b. Prosthetic charges shall tie in with personal debt if needed.

"What on earth are "prosthetic charges"? And personal debt? What personal debt? What if a person is not indebted?" (OOC: For example, in RL, I have zero debt.)

II. Issuing company is not responsible for prosthetic damages caused by consumer.

"Again that stupid choice of using "consumer". Also, what "issuing company"? If I lose my leg and gain a new prosthetic one from the public healthcare system, what is the "issuing company"? Also, what the hell are "prosthetic damages"? You either need more definitions or less confusing word choices."

a. Above amendment shall not apply is prosthetic damage is due to manufacturing or surgical defects.

"Again, what amendment? What are you amending? And again, what is prosthetic damage? Also, surgical defects makes no fucking sense when paired with manufacturing. Surgery is something you do to living creatures, not prosthetic limbs."

III. Prosthetics shall be insured by 3rd party insurance companies.

"Why??? In Araraukar prosthetics are part of healthcare and thus insured same as any healthcare-related products; by the state."

a. Insurance companies must be government approved to insure prosthetics.

"So are you mandating the creation of non-governmental insurance companies? And what are the requirements for the governmental approval? And why government-approved? Why not state-approved?"

b. Insurance must be bought by consumer for above amendment to apply.

"What amendment? What are you amending? Also, once more, patient, not consumer. And why must insurance be bought by the patient, when the prosthetics should come with either manufacturer's guarantee."

IV. Any defective prosthetics that have been issued are issuing company’s responsibilities.

"Issued? Don't you mean manufactured?"

a. All defective prosthetics shall be refunded 100% of the money.
b. Consumers will get a free replacement of the same quality from said company.

"So they would get money back and a free replacement? Isn't that unfair to the manufacturer? Simply having a replacement for free should be sufficient, unless the defectiveness caused additional injuries."

OOC: All in all, not very convinced that this is needed or an international issue. Also, your word choices are weird, to say the least.

[Aureumterra]

Done!

OOC: B...but...you didn't really change anything...

Done!

Ooc: yet again, you've ignored all the feedback given. None of this is an improvement.

This done was only referring to the post directly above it, I just didn’t quote it for some reason.

[Aureumterra]

Alright, I made a few edits, why don’t you, instead of pointing out mistakes, suggest a way to fix it. Isn’t that what GA Secratists do?

[Araraukar]

Alright, I made a few edits

OOC: Instead of "a few edits", please address my points directly. Your arguments will be stronger and easier to understand if you reply to feedback given rather than just making some vague edits without replying.

why don’t you, instead of pointing out mistakes, suggest a way to fix it.

SP has been trying to. But other than that, if the idea's bad in our (as it certainly is in mine) opinion, it still counts as helpful to point out the mistakes and errors and bad ideas. Fixing it (or abandoning it, which might be a better idea) is your job as its writer. Replying to feedback, rather than rushing to edit the draft, helps in that process.

Isn’t that what GA Secratists do?

"GA Secretariat" and no, it's not. GenSec's only "job" (and remember they're unpaid volunteers!) is to decide on official legality challenges. EDIT: Also, I'm not in GenSec and neither is anyone else here aside from SP.