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: 12289
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: 32
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: 12289
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: 32
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: 12289
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.

Previous

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Iciaros, Pax Aurea, Slackertown, Zenithian

Advertisement

Remove ads