[Draft] Protocol on Psychosurgery

[Araraukar]

I could remove the clause, and instead insert a modified version of it for all major illnesses in The Cloning Conventions proposal, which could be much cleaner. Thoughts?

OOC: Thoughts? Yes: drop the nonsense about the clones.

More specifically, "mental illness" (clause 1) and "brain malformations" (clause 4) don't really have... much to do with one another. Epilepsy is not a mental illness, for instance, even though it might be caused by a structural/functional defect and be relieved with surgery. As usual, you seem to have definitions for words that aren't the normally used definitions. Also I think PRA already covers clause 2, at least so that it can't be done against the individual's will.

Also, I still can't help but think of something like this when seeing the title...

[Caspian Settlement]

I could remove the clause, and instead insert a modified version of it for all major illnesses in The Cloning Conventions proposal, which could be much cleaner. Thoughts?

OOC: Thoughts? Yes: drop the nonsense about the clones.

More specifically, "mental illness" (clause 1) and "brain malformations" (clause 4) don't really have... much to do with one another. Epilepsy is not a mental illness, for instance, even though it might be caused by a structural/functional defect and be relieved with surgery. As usual, you seem to have definitions for words that aren't the normally used definitions. Also I think PRA already covers clause 2, at least so that it can't be done against the individual's will.

Also, I still can't help but think of something like this when seeing the title...

Dropped.

Some brain malformations definitely have a high chance of causing mental illness, which is why Clause 4 only refers to brain malformations which have such a high chance.

[Araraukar]

Some brain malformations definitely have a high chance of causing mental illness, which is why Clause 4 only refers to brain malformations which have such a high chance.

OOC: Then what counts as high chance? 5%? 30%? 95%? Or for that matter what's "near-certainty"? Shouldn't it be complete certainty?

Also, why giving fetuses different rights? (And I'm slightly worried that the political leanings of the pregnant individual aren't on a ban list there.)

[Caspian Settlement]

Some brain malformations definitely have a high chance of causing mental illness, which is why Clause 4 only refers to brain malformations which have such a high chance.

OOC: Then what counts as high chance? 5%? 30%? 95%? Or for that matter what's "near-certainty"? Shouldn't it be complete certainty?

Also, why giving fetuses different rights? (And I'm slightly worried that the political leanings of the pregnant individual aren't on a ban list there.)

OOC: Nothing in medicine can be of complete certainty, I believe - there's always a chance of diagnostic error, however small it may be, and having certainty as a requirement would likely prevent the use of psychosurgery for those who actually need it.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the political leanings of a pregnant individual?

[Araraukar]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the political leanings of a pregnant individual?

OOC: *points to your clause 2*

[Caspian Settlement]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the political leanings of a pregnant individual?

OOC: *points to your clause 2*

Edited accordingly.

Given there are no other objections, I would consider submitting this resolution before this weekend.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 3 doesn't really need a subclause as there's only one subclause. Either make the subclause its own clause or absorb it into the main clause. Additionally, what about distinguishing between the individual seeking the treatment themselves (which is when the bar could be lower) versus the treatment being ordered on them involuntarily or because they're not considered legally competent (when it should be higher)?

Also, with "major or extreme", the latter term is unnecessary, as "major" includes "extreme".

[Kenmoria]

“There is no reasoning that I can see for allowing pregnant women to undergo psychosurgery based on a political position for some benefit for the child. Could you perhaps explain this to me? Also, I believe the ‘Understanding’ clause would flow better were there to be a ‘the’ after the ‘on’.”

[Caspian Settlement]

OOC: Clause 3 doesn't really need a subclause as there's only one subclause. Either make the subclause its own clause or absorb it into the main clause. Additionally, what about distinguishing between the individual seeking the treatment themselves (which is when the bar could be lower) versus the treatment being ordered on them involuntarily or because they're not considered legally competent (when it should be higher)?

Also, with "major or extreme", the latter term is unnecessary, as "major" includes "extreme".

Edited accordingly. As for distinguishing between individuals seeking treatment themselves and individuals not considered legally competent, as psychosurgery is a controversial treatment with a great potential for misuse, I rather have both patients be treated equally than some malicious foreign government labeling all psychosurgery patients as "seeking the treatment themselves," thus exploiting the distinguishing clause.

“There is no reasoning that I can see for allowing pregnant women to undergo psychosurgery based on a political position for some benefit for the child. Could you perhaps explain this to me? Also, I believe the ‘Understanding’ clause would flow better were there to be a ‘the’ after the ‘on’.”

Edited accordingly. Clause 2 has been added to.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So it seems to me that we've just gone back to Patients Rights Act?

[Caspian Settlement]

So it seems to me that we've just gone back to Patients Rights Act?

How so?

This resolution may be submitted relatively soon, depending on the results of The Cloning Conventions.

[Kranostav]

I don't understand the push to regulate medical procedures in the WA. This seems like an issue that would be much better handled by individual nations as species and medical norms vary. And most abuse would almost certainly be stopped by previous legislation.

[Caspian Settlement]

So it seems to me that we've just gone back to Patients Rights Act?

If you're able to provide an elaboration, I'm still open to listening.

I don't understand the push to regulate medical procedures in the WA. This seems like an issue that would be much better handled by individual nations as species and medical norms vary. And most abuse would almost certainly be stopped by previous legislation.

Unlike other medical procedures, psychosurgery differs in the potentially large effects it can have, especially on the mind of the patient, and therefore extra precautions should be taken.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 6 should probably say ‘all reasonable’, ‘all sensible’ or something similar instead of just ‘all’, to avoid doctors having to try every single form of psychosurgery ever invented before using lobotomies.”