NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Protocol on Psychosurgery

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:20 pm

Caspian Settlement wrote: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... :lol2:
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 35
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Caspian Settlement » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:38 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote: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... :lol2:

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.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:48 am

Caspian Settlement wrote: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.)
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 35
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Caspian Settlement » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:35 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote: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?
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:41 am

Caspian Settlement wrote:Could you elaborate on what you mean by the political leanings of a pregnant individual?

OOC: *points to your clause 2*
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Caspian Settlement
Secretary
 
Posts: 35
Founded: Sep 18, 2016
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Caspian Settlement » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:50 am

Araraukar wrote:
Caspian Settlement wrote: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.
A Proud Patriotic Pacifican.
Author of 4 WA Resolutions. | GP Alignment: 2, 19 | Discord: Cassett#0940
Formerly known as La Navasse | IC: Caspian, OOC: Cassett (CAS-set)

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:39 pm

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".
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:12 pm

“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’.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Imperium Anglorum, Lislandia, Morover, Tinfect, ZUN

Advertisement

Remove ads