"I am supportive of the general principal which inspires this proposed resolution, but find there are some modifications that would be necessary for it to be acceptable in practice, largely revolving around medical scenarios which are far more broad than what is defined in the clauses presently contained."
Morover wrote:Category: Regulation - Safety
The World Assembly,
Distressed by the notable lack of legislation on the topic of forced drug use,
Believing that forcing a person to consume drugs is unethical and immoral,
Disgusted at those that intentionally drug another individual for personal gain,
Aware that, in certain circumstances, the required intake of drugs is useful,
Believing that there should be regulations on forced drug use,
The first and fifth declarations are basically the same. I would toss the first and keep the fifth, which is stronger.
I would also alter the second item to insert "for non-medical purposes" in the middle.
Enacts the Following:
As suggested by Maowi above, this should just be "Hereby" or another word that works with the tense you've used in the articles.
Article One
- Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,
- Prohibits member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,
- Further prohibits all member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from intentionally releasing hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.
I am concerned that attempting to prohibit "any individual residing in or visiting..." may fall afoul of attempting to legislate for non-WA members. Should a non-WA citizen be visiting or resident within a WA nation, we may assume that the laws of the WA nation will be enforced, but specifically attempting to write a policy that targets residents and visitors, as opposed to citizens, is crossing this oft-trod line. The rule would be stronger without any attempt at an exclusive list, as that creates the possibility of exceptions. If you simply prohibit the activity though, that directly catches all possible scenarios.
Additionally, sub-clause 1.3 only covers releases intended to affect residents, but says nothing of targeting visitors, nor of uses such as a border release where prevailing winds will carry it to a neighboring nation's communities. This should simply prohibit aerosol releases without consent, without limiting the protected class to only residents.
Article Two
- Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
- Prohibits all member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from allowing the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,
- Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement or military,
- Further clarifies that, during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, a surgeon may apply an unapproved sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner,
- Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any external natural substances that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,
- Requires the World Health Authority to ensure that all sedatives are kept to a standard of safety which will minimize all injuries that occur as a direct result of the sedative, assuming the sedative is being used by any reasonable person.
Co-Authored by United Massachusetts
Sub-clauses 2.2 and 2.4 seem to completely exclude the possibility of emergency medicine, where an incapacitated subject is not accompanied by their next-of-kin. The administration of sedation for transportation, stabilization, trauma surgery, and other medically vital activities is prohibited by this draft, unless the next-of-kin provides explicit approval. This will result in serious and lethal consequences on an immense scale.
Sub-clause 2.2 further stumbles with the use of the term "allowing" rather than "performing" or some other active verb. As written, it would seem to create an obligation for members of the public to forcibly intervene to prevent the sedation of others, as opposed to creating an obligation not to perform such sedation themselves.
Sub-clause 2.2 finally falls afoul of the same attempt to create an exclusive list as discussed for elements of Article 1, above. It is recommended that this list be removed in favor of creating a generally applicable policy.
Sub-clause 2.3 should include medical personnel in the exception list in addition to law enforcement and military. For example, the staff of a psychological ward facing an enraged and violent patient are not law enforcement or military personnel, and would under the current draft be unable to sedate their charge.
Sub-clause 2.4 uses the word "unapproved" in an unclear way. "Approval" is never defined, nor is it clear who or what the "approving" body is. On my initial reading this struck me as an authorization for an anesthesiologist, mid-procedure, to apply a medication that remains unapproved by regulators. I do not believe this was the intent.
Sub-clause 2.5 refers to "external natural substances" without any clarity on the meaning of the term. Are we speaking of drifting pollen from plants? Lavender oil imported from a foreign nation? All forms of natural sedatives if they are administered outdoors? Regardless of which, this seems to drift from the core purpose of this legislation, which relates to the deliberate administration of drugs, against the will of the recipient. Stretching it to address happenstantial environmental or trade incidence weakens the proposal rather than strengthening it.
Sub-clause 2.6 mandates that the WHA "ensure" sedatives are safe for their indicated uses, without providing clarity on how or in what manner they can do so. Are they creating a standard to which member states must adhere? Are they performing spot checks of batches? If so, who does this and how?