[SUBMITTED] Medical Provider Conscience Act

[Gratissima]

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Defines medical facilities as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare; medical personnel as any person or persons who by contract either provide or assist in the provision of healthcare within a medical facility; and public medical facilities as medical facilities owned and operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. If the government has fully privatized the healthcare system, and no facilities are willing to perform said procedures, the government must establish facilities in convenient locations that provide said procedures.

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.
b. The objection must not in any way object to the gender, race, or personality of the patient.
c. If another medical professional cannot be found in a timely manner to perform the said procedure (if it is deemed medically necessary but not immediately necessary for the preservation of life), the doctor in question must perform the procedure, except in cases defined by international law.

4. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

5. If a compromise cannot be reached, then the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

Previous drafts in order of newest to oldest:

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Defines medical facilities as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare; medical personnel as any person or persons who by contract either provide or assist in the provision of healthcare within a medical facility; and public medical facilities as medical facilities owned and operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. If the government has fully privatized the healthcare system, and no facilities are willing to perform said procedures, the government must establish facilities in convenient locations that provide said procedures.

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.
b. The objection must not in any way object to the gender, race, or personality of the patient.
c. If another medical professional cannot be found in a timely manner to perform the said procedure (if it is deemed medically necessary but not immediately necessary for the preservation of life), the doctor in question must perform the procedure. An exception is in the case of abortion, where as provided by GAR #128, "...no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance."

4. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

5. If a compromise cannot be reached, then the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Defines medical facilities as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare; medical personnel as any person or persons who by contract either provide or assist in the provision of healthcare within a medical facility; and public medical facilities as medical facilities owned and operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. If the government has fully privatized the healthcare system, and no facilities are willing to perform said procedures, the government must establish facilities in convenient locations that provide said procedures.

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.
b. The objection must not in any way object to the gender, race, or personality of the patient.
c. If another medical professional cannot be found in a timely manner to perform the said procedure (if it is deemed medically necessary but not immediately necessary for the preservation of life), the doctor in question must perform the procedure. An exception is in the case of abortion, where as provided by GAR# 128, "...no physician may be compelled to perform abortion against their moral stance."

4. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

5. If a compromise cannot be reached, then the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Defines medical facilities as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare; medical personnel as any person or persons who by contract either provide or assist in the provision of healthcare within a medical facility; and public medical facilities as medical facilities owned and operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. If the government has fully privatized the healthcare system, and no facilities are willing to perform said procedures, the government must establish facilities in convenient locations that provide said procedures.

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.
b. The objection must not in any way object to the gender, race, or personality of the patient.
c. If another medical professional cannot be found in a timely manner to perform the said procedure (if it is deemed medically necessary but not immediately necessary for the preservation of life), the doctor in question must perform the procedure.

4. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

5. If a compromise cannot be reached, then the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Defines medical facilities as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare; medical personnel as any person or persons who by contract either provide or assist in the provision of healthcare within a medical facility; and public medical facilities as medical facilities owned and operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. If the government has fully privatized the healthcare system, and no facilities are willing to perform said procedures, the government must establish facilities in convenient locations that provide said procedures.

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.

4. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

5. If a compromise cannot be reached, then the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Defines medical facilities as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare; medical personnel as any person or persons who by contract either provide or assist in the provision of healthcare within a medical facility; and public medical facilities as medical facilities owned and operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.

4. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility, specifically public facilities, are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

5. If a compromise cannot be reached, then either the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. Medical facilities are defined as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare.
b. Medical personnel are defined as any person who by contract either provides or assists in the provision of healthcare in a
medical facility.
c. Public medical facilities are medical facilities operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.

3. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility, specifically public facilities, are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

4. If a compromise cannot be reached, then either the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. Medical facilities are defined as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare.
b. Medical personnel are defined as any person who by contract either provides or assists in the provision of healthcare in a
medical facility.
c. Public medical facilities are medical facilities operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the patient, criminal history, or the religion of the patient are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

3. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility, specifically public facilities, are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

4. If a compromise cannot be reached, then either the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. Medical facilities are defined as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare.
b. Medical personnel are defined as any person who by contract either provides or assists in the provision of healthcare in a
medical facility.
c. Public medical facilities are medical facilities operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using.

3. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility, specifically public facilities, are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

4. If a compromise cannot be reached, then either the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. Medical facilities are defined as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare.
b. Medical personnel are defined as any person who by contract either provides or assists in the provision of healthcare in a
medical facility.
c. Public medical facilities are medical facilities operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

3. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility, specifically public facilities, are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

4. If a compromise cannot be reached, then either the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

[Separatist Peoples]

"So, a medical provider is shielded from liability for their refusal, even if it is in breach of a contract? Seems to me that this would let medical providers breach contract with clients willy-nilly."

[Gratissima]

"You bring up a good point. Although I obviously want to protect medical providers from going against their consciences, I also don't want people to take advantage of the system. Perhaps a modification regarding the contracts themselves is in order."

[The New Nordic Union]

In the case of abortion, it is a duplication of Resolution #128 'On Abortion' section 5.

[Attempted Socialism]

"So a medical provider will be allowed to put lives in danger and disregard medical evidence due to some horrific beliefs, without referring to other caretakers, and without any possibility of justice? This proposal is antithetical to any just or moral society, and we will be opposed to it and any proposals based on the same principles."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, I echo the observation that you make no exception for circumstances where a procedure that a medical practitioner might find morally objectionable happens to be necessary for the health or even the life of the patient. Substitute practitioners are only going to have so much availability; not doing your duty as a doctor when there's nobody else who can, is unacceptable. The WA should not be excusing - let alone encouraging - such misconduct."

[Arotania]

If one does not like the ocean, one should not work on a fishing boat. A person not liking abortion should not work specialise into gynaecology. A person that has moral objections to blood transfusions should not become a surgeon. It is really that easy. Unless a country has forced education and labor this draft is superfluous.
Also section four reads pretty respectless towards medical professionals in our eyes. Medical professionals are not little children that need to be taken by the hand and have their contracts explained to them. Medical procedures are not secret knowledge. A person that has learned and trained for years to work in a certain field knows what is expected to be part of their job.

[The Inland Emprie]

If one does not like the ocean, one should not work on a fishing boat. A person not liking abortion should not work specialise into gynaecology. A person that has moral objections to blood transfusions should not become a surgeon. It is really that easy. Unless a country has forced education and labor this draft is superfluous.
Also section four reads pretty respectless towards medical professionals in our eyes. Medical professionals are not little children that need to be taken by the hand and have their contracts explained to them. Medical procedures are not secret knowledge. A person that has learned and trained for years to work in a certain field knows what is expected to be part of their job.

There are other things done in those fields.
You will have my support of this bill.

[New-Brussels]

If one does not like the ocean, one should not work on a fishing boat. A person not liking abortion should not work specialise into gynaecology. A person that has moral objections to blood transfusions should not become a surgeon. It is really that easy. Unless a country has forced education and labor this draft is superfluous.
Also section four reads pretty respectless towards medical professionals in our eyes. Medical professionals are not little children that need to be taken by the hand and have their contracts explained to them. Medical procedures are not secret knowledge. A person that has learned and trained for years to work in a certain field knows what is expected to be part of their job.

I would add that, in the case where the concerned medical procedures are considered legal and moral by the relevant authorities to the point that they are practiced without public outcry, there should be no question as to whether or not these procedures should be applied to an ill person that necessitates them and the legal and moral consequences of refusing to apply these procedures should not be avoided.

[The New Nordic Union]

If one does not like the ocean, one should not work on a fishing boat. A person not liking abortion should not work specialise into gynaecology. A person that has moral objections to blood transfusions should not become a surgeon. It is really that easy. Unless a country has forced education and labor this draft is superfluous.
Also section four reads pretty respectless towards medical professionals in our eyes. Medical professionals are not little children that need to be taken by the hand and have their contracts explained to them. Medical procedures are not secret knowledge. A person that has learned and trained for years to work in a certain field knows what is expected to be part of their job.

I would add that, in the case where the concerned medical procedures are considered legal and moral by the relevant authorities to the point that they are practiced without public outcry, there should be no question as to whether or not these procedures should be applied to an ill person that necessitates them and the legal and moral consequences of refusing to apply these procedures should not be avoided.

I concur. Otherwise, 'moral objections' could be used as an excuse to withhold any (necessary) medical treatment from any person for arbitrary reasons, from racism and homophobia, etc., to plain personal dislike.

Also, does section 3 not render the whole proposal ineffective? If Member Nations are to decide what a 'legitimate reason' and, therefore, legitimate moral objection is, then nothing hinders individual nations from defining no procedure as morally objectionable. The purpose of the resolution could thus not be achieved.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Let's just not, shall we?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Let's just not, shall we?

OOC: ^This.

I know something like this was passed in the States recently, and it's a really fucked up thing that would be illegal under the existing WA resolutions. (Not that USA would be compliant with a lot of the resolutions anyway...) Since USA is the promised land of lawsuits, I expect the new law to be challenged fairly soon...

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Let's just not, shall we?

OOC: ^This.

I know something like this was passed in the States recently, and it's a really fucked up thing that would be illegal under the existing WA resolutions. (Not that USA would be compliant with a lot of the resolutions anyway...) Since USA is the promised land of lawsuits, I expect the new law to be challenged fairly soon...

OOC: Lawsuits permit individuals to have their grievances heard. Why do you hate rights, Ara?

Permitting moral accommodation is not so extreme a concept as it sounds. Most organizations permit a degree of this anyway. Its simpler to make some sort of substitution where necessary and avoid a stink rather than to force somebody to do something. Its concept isn't inherently offensive, and I can't say that I'd be opposed, provided withdrawal is entirely conditional on a mutually agreeable compromise being available at that moment.

[Gratissima]

OOC: ^This.

I know something like this was passed in the States recently, and it's a really fucked up thing that would be illegal under the existing WA resolutions. (Not that USA would be compliant with a lot of the resolutions anyway...) Since USA is the promised land of lawsuits, I expect the new law to be challenged fairly soon...

OOC: Lawsuits permit individuals to have their grievances heard. Why do you hate rights, Ara?

Permitting moral accommodation is not so extreme a concept as it sounds. Most organizations permit a degree of this anyway. Its simpler to make some sort of substitution where necessary and avoid a stink rather than to force somebody to do something. Its concept isn't inherently offensive, and I can't say that I'd be opposed, provided withdrawal is entirely conditional on a mutually agreeable compromise being available at that moment.

"Thank you for your support, I guess? I will make some tweaks based on your comments."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Lawsuits permit individuals to have their grievances heard. Why do you hate rights, Ara?

Permitting moral accommodation is not so extreme a concept as it sounds. Most organizations permit a degree of this anyway. Its simpler to make some sort of substitution where necessary and avoid a stink rather than to force somebody to do something. Its concept isn't inherently offensive, and I can't say that I'd be opposed, provided withdrawal is entirely conditional on a mutually agreeable compromise being available at that moment.

"Thank you for your support, I guess? I will make some tweaks based on your comments."

OOC: I don't support this. I support the concept of permitting ethical withdrawal for medical personnel based on my understanding of medical ethics and the role of doctors as more than mere technicians. I'm concerned that your draft woefully oversimplifies the issue, and doesn't take into account any of the competing normative values at play.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Please post old drafts in spoilers beneath your current draft.
Also, currently clause 2, line 2 would currently outlaw objections based on religion, in which case the point is moot, because religious objections is what the draft aims to protect. You need to fix your writing - though not even a flawlessly written resolution on this subject could pass.

[Gratissima]

OOC: Please post old drafts in spoilers beneath your current draft.
Also, currently clause 2, line 2 would currently outlaw objections based on religion, in which case the point is moot, because religious objections is what the draft aims to protect. You need to fix your writing - though not even a flawlessly written resolution on this subject could pass.

OOC: It does not mean objections based on religious belief. It means objections based on the religion of the person receiving the treatment. And sorry, I'm new to making legislation. I'll start doing that.

[Gratissima]

The World Assembly,

NOTING the number of varying procedures defined as medical procedures in today's world,

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

ALSO RECOGNIZING that some medical personnel bear strong personal convictions regarding the morality of aforementioned procedures,

HEREBY:

1. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

a. Medical facilities are defined as a building or association that is dedicated to the provision of healthcare.
b. Medical personnel are defined as any person who by contract either provides or assists in the provision of healthcare in a
medical facility.
c. Public medical facilities are medical facilities operated by the government of the nation or region they are located in.

2. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the patient, criminal history, or the religion of the patient are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

3. Requires that from this point, medical personnel applying or seeking to work in a medical facility, specifically public facilities, are to have their full contract explained to them in order to make them aware of all medical services they are expected to provide, and if they disagree with the morality of a certain service in said contract, negotiations are to be made to see if they can be accommodated in some way that does not violate their principles.

4. If a compromise cannot be reached, then either the medical personnel applying will either have to accept the contract as it is, or will have to be turned away.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Please post old drafts in spoilers beneath your current draft.
Also, currently clause 2, line 2 would currently outlaw objections based on religion, in which case the point is moot, because religious objections is what the draft aims to protect. You need to fix your writing - though not even a flawlessly written resolution on this subject could pass.

OOC: It does not mean objections based on religious belief. It means objections based on the religion of the person receiving the treatment. And sorry, I'm new to making legislation. I'll start doing that.

OOC: It does not say what you want it to say, it says what it says. And based on that line, I would be forced by WA law to add religion to a list of illegitimate reasons for objections (So effectively no change from the current situation, but still).

[Gratissima]

OOC: It does not mean objections based on religious belief. It means objections based on the religion of the person receiving the treatment. And sorry, I'm new to making legislation. I'll start doing that.

OOC: It does not say what you want it to say, it says what it says. And based on that line, I would be forced by WA law to add religion to a list of illegitimate reasons for objections (So effectively no change from the current situation, but still).

OOC: Um, I've specifically changed it to say objections based on the religion of the patient. It says what it says.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: It does not say what you want it to say, it says what it says. And based on that line, I would be forced by WA law to add religion to a list of illegitimate reasons for objections (So effectively no change from the current situation, but still).

OOC: Um, I've specifically changed it to say objections based on the religion of the patient. It says what it says.

OOC: Now that you have changed it to say what you intended, you mean? Next, you can fix the issue of a doctor not being able to claim own criminal history as a legitimate objection; with the specification of 'patient' on both sides, it's a fairly easy interpretation.
When you're done fixing the most glaring tiny errors, you can scrap the entire thing. It's immoral and a waste of your time.

[Gratissima]

OOC: Um, I've specifically changed it to say objections based on the religion of the patient. It says what it says.

OOC: Now that you have changed it to say what you intended, you mean? Next, you can fix the issue of a doctor not being able to claim own criminal history as a legitimate objection; with the specification of 'patient' on both sides, it's a fairly easy interpretation.
When you're done fixing the most glaring tiny errors, you can scrap the entire thing. It's immoral and a waste of your time.

OOC: OK, first of all, most countries make it extremely difficult (or should) to become a doctor if you have an extensive criminal record. Second, why would someone object to performing a medical procedure because of his own criminal record? Are you implying that the person had no control over his actions that were classified as crimes? If so, then perhaps the doctor in question should be on the patient end of the spectrum. And what is wrong with changing it to say what I intend it to say? If you made a mistake in your somewhat impolite refutations of my efforts, you would not hesitate to edit it. In fact, I apologize for the somewhat crabby response, and I actually thank you for pointing out the mistake I made in my wording. If you are so opposed to the issue, then you can vote it down when (and if) it comes to vote. Now, if you have some constructive criticism to make (such as specifying on these "most glaring tiny errors"), I would genuinely love to hear it.

[Auralia]

((OOC: Just wanted to briefly say that I'm strongly supportive of the idea of providing conscience protections to medical personnel in World Assembly law and I definitely encourage you to keep pursuing this, notwithstanding some of the comments from other players.

I'll have some more substantive comments later.))

[Tinfect]

Now, if you have some constructive criticism to make (such as specifying on these "most glaring tiny errors"), I would genuinely love to hear it.

OOC:
Here's a glaring, tiny error:
Medical personnel can refuse to treat patients because they 'have a moral objection' to lifesaving or otherwise necessary procedures.

[Gratissima]

Now, if you have some constructive criticism to make (such as specifying on these "most glaring tiny errors"), I would genuinely love to hear it.

OOC:
Here's a glaring, tiny error:
Medical personnel can refuse to treat patients because they 'have a moral objection' to lifesaving or otherwise necessary procedures.

OOC: You make a good point. See, this is what I wanted. Is this so much to ask for?
Anyways, whether or not you define abortion as a lifesaving procedure, I agree that I will need to specify more clearly on that subject. Thanks for pointing it out.