[DISCARDED] Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs

[Denathor]

OOC: I have no problems with the contents of the proposal, it is an excellent piece of legislation. However, I notice that at the end of Clause 7 of Article 2, there is both a comma and a period. Might want to fix that before submission.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The preamble looks odd, given that in 3 sentences it goes from "disgusting practice" to "but okay sometimes". Maybe tone down the first clause?

[Morover]

OOC: Both of y'all's complaints have been fixed.

This will be submitted in just under five hours.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The bit about additional sedatives during a surgery, the wording "neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached" sounds odd, given that the patient is right there on the operating table, they're just conked out by sedatives (hopefully!). Maybe "neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin can be reached to acquire their consent". It doesn't sound like a big change, but "able to" isn't quite true as technically they could un-sedate the person (as in, they have the ability to), but as that's seriously a bad idea mid-operation, the "can" takes into consideration the circumstances as well. And the rest of it emphasizes the consent bit.

[Morover]

OOC: The bit about additional sedatives during a surgery, the wording "neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached" sounds odd, given that the patient is right there on the operating table, they're just conked out by sedatives (hopefully!). Maybe "neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin can be reached to acquire their consent". It doesn't sound like a big change, but "able to" isn't quite true as technically they could un-sedate the person (as in, they have the ability to), but as that's seriously a bad idea mid-operation, the "can" takes into consideration the circumstances as well. And the rest of it emphasizes the consent bit.

OOC:

Fixed, thanks.

This has been submitted.

[Verdant Haven]

I am still concerned about this for the same reason I mentioned before - medical use of medications when no consent can be obtained. Paramedics and other first responders, as well as many fully-qualified members of the medical staff at intake to a hospital, are not "surgeons" and are not performing "operations." When we come down to it, anesthesiologists are not "surgeons" either, and would be prohibited from performing their duties in many circumstances. There needs to be blanket language protecting all medical staff working in their professional capacity, or else this will have wide-ranging fatal side-effects.

This proposal continues to prohibit both basic and advanced emergent medical care. This may be inadvertent, but it is extremely explicit, and I can not in good conscience support it due to these mistakes. The definitions are insufficiently precise, or else, are incorrectly precise in a manner that is crippling.

[Morover]

I am still concerned about this for the same reason I mentioned before - medical use of medications when no consent can be obtained. Paramedics and other first responders, as well as many fully-qualified members of the medical staff at intake to a hospital, are not "surgeons" and are not performing "operations." When we come down to it, anesthesiologists are not "surgeons" either, and would be prohibited from performing their duties in many circumstances. There needs to be blanket language protecting all medical staff working in their professional capacity, or else this will have wide-ranging fatal side-effects.

This proposal continues to prohibit both basic and advanced emergent medical care. This may be inadvertent, but it is extremely explicit, and I can not in good conscience support it due to these mistakes. The definitions are insufficiently precise, or else, are incorrectly precise in a manner that is crippling.

OOC:

While I agree that the wording isn't ideal and I should've changed it, it's not explicit enough to actually prevent anesthesiologists or other medical personnel from doing their job. The dictionary definition of "surgeon" and "surgery" are actually vague enough to cover all qualified medical personnel. In the event that it is reported (which is doubtful in itself), it can be assumed based off of the strict definition of "surgeon" that the action would be good-faith in itself, and thus be compliant. I appreciate the concern, and you're right that it's less than ideal, but I legitimately don't think that its enough to ruin the proposal as a whole.

[Polis Diamonil]

What if someday there's a horrible disease whose cure is incidentally hallucinogenic? At risk of revealing a failure to grasp medical impossibility, this is our gravest objection.

What if someday there's some extraordinarily effective criminal or psychological rehabilitation technique relying on a compound with hallucinogenic effects? This is a more serious objection; although less severe in extreme, it is a much more probable occurrence.

This resolution could impair scientific progress with very little gain in safety for nations with strong public order that have also sought to advance the scientific understanding of mind-affecting substances.

(Amended; further argumentation appended to the record as follows.)
Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects:

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated.

Further amendments based upon review of the present history of argumentation on this subject have stricken the original complaint registered by Polis Diamonil, which is the spoilered content above, but have retained the appended argument regarding natural pharmacopeia. The complaint regarding potential disease cures was already addressed by national representatives pointing out that the resolution defines hallucinogen in a manner adequately limited as to prevent the inadvertent criminalization of legitimate medical necessities, for which Polis Diamonil wishes to register its gratitude. However, the suppression of sources of natural sedation could still impair environmental and medical research directly in areas of heightened biochemical interest.

A further argument taking into account bioscientific potentials is appended as follows:
What prevents the mandated suppression of natural substances not considered a biological part of any sapient which could lead to involuntary sedation of residents from mandating the destruction of bio-engineered pets or lawful pharmacological cultivations reliant on concentration of sedatives in thorns or other forms of potential contact-sedation should they be touched by the unwary?

[Waffia]

Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects.

First, those animals or plants must "pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated"; and second it doesn't require burning the environment, only the suppression of the substance in some way.

What prevents the mandated suppression of natural substances not considered a biological part of any sapient which could lead to involuntary sedation of residents from mandating the destruction of bio-engineered pets or lawful pharmacological cultivations reliant on concentration of sedatives in thorns or other forms of potential contact-sedation should they be touched by the unwary?

Just cultivate them in a safe location so they don't pose a risk to the unwary.

[Kenmoria]

“Seeing as this is at vote, I will declare the Kenmoria WA Mission’s vote in favour of this proposal. It is a very sensible addition to the growing body of law protecting the citizens of the World Assembly.”

[Bears Armed]

Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects:

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated.

This possible objection occurred to urrs, as well, but then we re-considered it on the groundss that the clause only binds member nations "to the best of their ability", and that if an existing resolution forbids that destruction -- to preserve endangered species, for example, or to prevent wildfires -- then the member nations legally do not have the ability to carry it out..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
.

[Marxist Germany]

“Seeing as this is at vote, I will declare the Kenmoria WA Mission’s vote in favour of this proposal. It is a very sensible addition to the growing body of law protecting the citizens of the World Assembly.”

"I have to echo this statement."

[Morover]

What if someday there's a horrible disease whose cure is incidentally hallucinogenic? At risk of revealing a failure to grasp medical impossibility, this is our gravest objection.

What if someday there's some extraordinarily effective criminal or psychological rehabilitation technique relying on a compound with hallucinogenic effects? This is a more serious objection; although less severe in extreme, it is a much more probable occurrence.

This resolution could impair scientific progress with very little gain in safety for nations with strong public order that have also sought to advance the scientific understanding of mind-affecting substances.

(Amended; further argumentation appended to the record as follows.)
Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects:

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated.

Further amendments based upon review of the present history of argumentation on this subject have stricken the original complaint registered by Polis Diamonil, which is the spoilered content above, but have retained the appended argument regarding natural pharmacopeia. The complaint regarding potential disease cures was already addressed by national representatives pointing out that the resolution defines hallucinogen in a manner adequately limited as to prevent the inadvertent criminalization of legitimate medical necessities, for which Polis Diamonil wishes to register its gratitude. However, the suppression of sources of natural sedation could still impair environmental and medical research directly in areas of heightened biochemical interest.

A further argument taking into account bioscientific potentials is appended as follows:
What prevents the mandated suppression of natural substances not considered a biological part of any sapient which could lead to involuntary sedation of residents from mandating the destruction of bio-engineered pets or lawful pharmacological cultivations reliant on concentration of sedatives in thorns or other forms of potential contact-sedation should they be touched by the unwary?

"The definition of 'hallucinogen' in terms of the proposal indicates that the drug is intended to have a hallucinogenic reaction upon administration of the hallucinogen. If, for instance, a drug was administered in order to cure a disease, and that drug just so happens to induce a hallucinogenic effect, then it would not fall under the provisions of the proposal."

"Additionally, in regards to your environmental concerns regarding clause 2-5, I would have to concur with the delegation from Bears Armed. It was written in such a way so that it does not block future environmental proposals, and that it would have to succumb to the will of environmental resolutions. While, to my knowledge, there is no resolution on the books that specifically preserves ecosystems, there is nothing stopping future legislation from being put in place. Additionally, in the case of low-population species, we refer you to Ransium's 'Preventing Species Extinction', which should adequately cover that."

[Polis Diamonil]

On behalf of Polis Diamonil, I thank you for addressing the concerns we raised against this resolution, and we will be switching our vote to one in favor.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Prohibits 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,

Clumsy language here, taking into no account best interests, capacity to consent, or age of majority. A baby is not incapacitated, but does lack capacity to consent.

Also problematic here is the explicit handing over of right to consent to next-of-kin.

This is frankly, extremely dangerous legal nonsense.

No reasonable jurisdiction with respect for bodily autonomy should allow a patient's next-of-kin to offer consent on their behalf unless that next of kin is named as having power of attorney over medical decisions, or has parental responsibility over a patient who is a minor without Gillick competence.

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, military, or medical personnel,

No.

Medical personnel, sure. But a legal framework that suggests it is acceptable for law enforcement to sedate someone they deem troublesome, or worse for the military to assauly its own nation's citizens is nothing short of dystopian.

While we are aware that there are nations out there that engage in such anti-democratic actions, we do not expect the WA to be promoting such values.

Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a 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

Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,

No.

The decision whether or not a substance should be legal or illegal is up to that of sovereign nations to decide, dependent on how liberal or not they are with regards to recreational and medicinal drugs.

Magic mushrooms could be used to spike someone's cupcake mix, and involuntarily sedate them. But in some nations, its permissible to take magic mushrooms.

Too extreme for you?

Alcohol has a sedative side effect, and could be added to someone's soft drink without them being aware. Does that mean alcohol should be banned?

Addressing involuntary administration of substances by banning the substance is not an evidence-based effective policy approach, and the GA should not be encouraging that approach.

[Verdant Haven]

Prohibits 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,

Clumsy language here, taking into no account best interests, capacity to consent, or age of majority. A baby is not incapacitated, but does lack capacity to consent.

Also problematic here is the explicit handing over of right to consent to next-of-kin.

This is frankly, extremely dangerous legal nonsense.

No reasonable jurisdiction with respect for bodily autonomy should allow a patient's next-of-kin to offer consent on their behalf unless that next of kin is named as having power of attorney over medical decisions, or has parental responsibility over a patient who is a minor without Gillick competence.

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, military, or medical personnel,

No.

Medical personnel, sure. But a legal framework that suggests it is acceptable for law enforcement to sedate someone they deem troublesome, or worse for the military to assauly its own nation's citizens is nothing short of dystopian.

While we are aware that there are nations out there that engage in such anti-democratic actions, we do not expect the WA to be promoting such values.

Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a 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

Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,

No.

The decision whether or not a substance should be legal or illegal is up to that of sovereign nations to decide, dependent on how liberal or not they are with regards to recreational and medicinal drugs.

Magic mushrooms could be used to spike someone's cupcake mix, and involuntarily sedate them. But in some nations, its permissible to take magic mushrooms.

Too extreme for you?

Alcohol has a sedative side effect, and could be added to someone's soft drink without them being aware. Does that mean alcohol should be banned?

Addressing involuntary administration of substances by banning the substance is not an evidence-based effective policy approach, and the GA should not be encouraging that approach.

I hate immediate repeals, but I would definitely be in favor of one should this bill pass. I have been expressing concerns about the medical shortcomings of it since I first saw it, and you have sagely pointed out several more. While the bill does specify "main effect" and "intended... effect" to reduce conflict with things like alcohol (though those terms are dangerously vague), I remain extremely uncomfortable with the shortcomings of the bill with regard to medical scenarios and consent, both of which are critical to a point far beyond mere vagueness. It is my personal opinion that this is medically and ethically dangerous.

[Roost1513]

This 'ban' is not just a ban - it promotes environmental destruction, endorses police abuse, and more. Against.

[Araraukar]

Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.

OOC: There already exists a resolution that gives them that right in some cases at least. This one couldn't contradict that one.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How does the provision in this resolution that

Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated[] or, [if] incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin, (where changed to if)

interact with the requirements in PRA given the following:—

Patients have the right to be involved in decisions concerning their care...

"patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority[] or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act. (unnecessary comma before 'or' omitted)

[Firelia]

Article One

Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,

This is a fail, what happens when a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended?, remember the case of viagra, it wasn't mean to do what it's used for, it doesn't even treat the main reason people buy it for as the main effect, bus as secondary effect, if you include "intention" as part of the deffinition, then you are not including all real hallucinogenic drugs, that means that if a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended I can do whatever this law prohibits me to do, so I say no, it must be corrected

[Kenmoria]

Article One

Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,

This is a fail, what happens when a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended?, remember the case of viagra, it wasn't mean to do what it's used for, it doesn't even treat the main reason people buy it for as the main effect, bus as secondary effect, if you include "intention" as part of the deffinition, then you are not including all real hallucinogenic drugs, that means that if a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended I can do whatever this law prohibits me to do, so I say no, it must be corrected

(OOC: It was intentional so as to not apply these regulations to benign substances that happen to have hallucinogenic side effects, such as alcohol. This means that only drugs which have no purpose other than to cause hallucinations, or ones whose other purposes are inconsequential such that being hallucinogenic are what everyone knows them for, are affected by this resolution.)

[American Pere Housh]

"The Divine Greek Imperium opposes this proposal as there will be times when people will have to be sedated against their will such as when they are a danger to themselves or other people."

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.

OOC: There already exists a resolution that gives them that right in some cases at least. This one couldn't contradict that one.

Please can you give a more specific citation?

Regardless, if one resolution gives explicit permission to give the next of kin the right to consent to a specific treatment, you would expect that to over-rule a general prohibition against doing so for treatments in general. In contradictory legislation, specific trumps general.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This is a fail, what happens when a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended?, remember the case of viagra, it wasn't mean to do what it's used for, it doesn't even treat the main reason people buy it for as the main effect, bus as secondary effect, if you include "intention" as part of the deffinition, then you are not including all real hallucinogenic drugs, that means that if a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended I can do whatever this law prohibits me to do, so I say no, it must be corrected

(OOC: It was intentional so as to not apply these regulations to benign substances that happen to have hallucinogenic side effects, such as alcohol. This means that only drugs which have no purpose other than to cause hallucinations, or ones whose other purposes are inconsequential such that being hallucinogenic are what everyone knows them for, are affected by this resolution.)

OOC: OOC intent doesn't mean much, as the legislation exists IC, and the IC interpretation of what is written matters. Instead, the IC writing should be changed to reflect OOC intent.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: There already exists a resolution that gives them that right in some cases at least. This one couldn't contradict that one.

Please can you give a more specific citation?

Regardless, if one resolution gives explicit permission to give the next of kin the right to consent to a specific treatment, you would expect that to over-rule a general prohibition against doing so for treatments in general. In contradictory legislation, specific trumps general.

OOC: File a legality challenge then.