[PASSED] Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc

[WayNeacTia]

No, I am not going to waste my time finding them for you.

Didn't ask you to, but thanks for considering it.

You're capable of research.

That I am. Thanks for pointing that out.

No, I'm not trying to conceal anything.

Never accused you of hiding anything.

Since the genie is out of the bottle on that front, though, its fairly moot as anything but a talking point for dumping on GenSec.

You seem to have a lot of pent up hostility when it comes to GenSec. I hold no animosity towards you or anyone else in GenSec. You do the job that I wouldn't want to do. I on the other hand would appreciate just a tad less snark. I didn't snark at you, I asked a question.

[Separatist Peoples]

No, I am not going to waste my time finding them for you.

Didn't ask you to, but thanks for considering it.

You're capable of research.

That I am. Thanks for pointing that out.

No, I'm not trying to conceal anything.

Never accused you of hiding anything.

Since the genie is out of the bottle on that front, though, its fairly moot as anything but a talking point for dumping on GenSec.

You seem to have a lot of pent up hostility when it comes to GenSec. I hold no animosity towards you or anyone else in GenSec. You do the job that I wouldn't want to do. I on the other hand would appreciate just a tad less snark. I didn't snark at you, I asked a question.

Not really. I just didn't feel like investing a lot of time in the issue, Chester.

[Lord Dominator]

"I find the assertion that this draft contradicts the 'Patient's Rights Act' to be rather...idiotic," Dee muses, leaning back in her chair.

A brief look at clauses I and II are rather clear on restrictions to medical procedures it gives."

With this, she pulls out a small stack of leathery copies of the resolution, with the clauses highlighted:

(I) Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures. A physician or qualified caregiver may provide treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent.

(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.

"I've also taken the liberty of bolding the most important part of this for out purposes. As you can no doubt see, the second clause clearly provides a requirement that the procedure be legal. If anyone of course would like to argue that the World Assembly here doesn't have the power to illegalize a given procedure in member nations, well, I haven't had my fill of crushing debate opponents yet today.

There of course remains the possibility that the procedure be 'life-saving.' Luckily, the delightful ambassador of the Imperium here has already provided for the potential of such.

I do believe that's all any claim of contradiction could even potentially stand on done away with, don't you?"

[Wallenburg]

This was submitted, and is now in queue.

[Lecosia]

OOC: What does WACC mean? (Also, is this the place for debate on whether to vote for the proposal now? I'm thinking not but can't find another place...sorry, I'm pretty new)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: What does WACC mean? (Also, is this the place for debate on whether to vote for the proposal now? I'm thinking not but can't find another place...sorry, I'm pretty new)

World Assembly Compliance Commission. And yes, this is the correct place to debate about the resolution at vote, should you so desire.

[Wallenburg]

"I am curious, Ambassador," asks Ogenbond, standing up in the voting chamber. "If we are to delegate legislative responsibilities to the Compliance Commission so that the question of sterilization in minors or legally incompetent individuals is wholly solved by a committee writing laws however it wishes, why not apply the same solution to all problems of international relevance? Surely, we'd be better off scrapping all our healthcare laws and delegating the task of writing that legislation to an independent Board for the Promotion of Health and Medical Ethics?"

[Khomney]

"Healthcare needs vary between nations as opposed to... the need to stop the sterilization of children." Johan Best answers, nose deep in the Holy Bible. He's not reading it. He's falling asleep in it, no doubt. "Point stands, I guess."

[Kenmoria]

“As this proposal is at vote, I declare this Mission’s vote in favour of this proposal.”

[BeatsMe]

While idea of the resolution is nice, it is totally not needed.
I would suggest to vote against this resolution.
In essence this is the same like passing resolution to encourage proper dental care or more attention to road accidents.
All those are noble ideas, but if you pollute the law with every minor nice idea you can imagine, you end up with thousands of laws nobody really knows about.
That just creates layers and specialized layers. And because there is law on everything people start thinking (or more precisely layers start arguing along the lines) that
in case if there was no specific law then abuse performed by client is not abuse at all. It is allowed. Or, they argue - at worst it is loophole in law. But surely his client should not be punished.
So very soon justice (and decency, and common sense) is replaced with "loopholes", "better layers" and "not enough specific laws".

I would lough in the face of anyone who would argue that big corporations in real word are facing justice (or pay taxes ).

About this particular matter:
this clearly is not something that is a problem in real world. This is resolution for only one reason - so that that it author can claim he has written an resolution.
In real world we can actually imagine very specific situation when this resolution is total nonsense. However most important, in real world no country ever abuses this think and this is not needed at all.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This nation's leadership deplores the use of "etc" in a title, as it creates an inappropriate lack of specificity for what ought to be an international legal document.

We also agree that the prohibition against child abuse already prevents forced sterilisation of a child, and that this therefore represents an additional layer of legislation to an already bloated bureaucracy. The General Assembly has a responsibility to use its funds in an efficient way, and the creation of an Institutional Review Board sounds to me like creating bureaucratic jobs for their own sake.

For that reason, we stand opposed to this resolution, though we express doubt that many of the world's delegates will give it much thought beyond reading the gist of the title, and thus expect it to pass anyway. Such is politics.

About this particular matter:
this clearly is not something that is a problem in real world. This is resolution for only one reason - so that that it author can claim he has written an resolution.
In real world we can actually imagine very specific situation when this resolution is total nonsense. However most important, in real world no country ever abuses this think and this is not needed at all.

While we find ourselves on the same side of this debate, raising similar points, I would observe that casting aspersions on the character of the Resolution's author is unbecoming of us as an Assembly, and that we should perhaps refrain from ad hominem arguments, instead focusing on the flaws of the proposed legislation itself. This nation's leadership notes that Imperium Anglorum is a highly respected member of the world's community of nations, and led by honourable folk. While we choose to attack this proposal, we do not choose to agree with any aspersions cast on the character of that nation's leader.

[WayNeacTia]

"Opposed. It is not the job of the WACC to craft regulations."

Wayne

[Bananaistan]

"We concur with delegations raising issues with secondary legislation by WACC. Opposed for this reason."

- Ted

[Iciaros]

"I must also concur with my fellow ambassadors who are opposed to this legislation." Ambassador Mercia leafs through her notes. "Excessive bureaucracy and covering already-covered grounds, in particular. I should also note that, were this ban not already covered by existing law, I would be inclined to reject it; between sterilisation and other more brutal and oppressive means of population control, it would be preferable to allow nations obsessed with regulating population numbers to pursue a more humane approach.

"In conclusion, opposed."

[East Meranopirus]

"The Delegation from East Meranopirus concurs with other delegations who have raised concerns over the unnecessarily bureaucratic nature of this proposal. We believe that Independent Review Boards created by this legislation is completely unnecessary and their purpose would be more effectively and efficiently served with doctors, who would be just as well informed on patients' conditions."

[Marxist Germany]

He entered the voting chamber to cast his vote, in an indigo suit, wearing a navy blue tie. Klaus took a ballot paper from the table and entered the voting booth to cast his vote. He leaves the booth with a sign of disappointment on his face as he sees the live results. He walks into the debate chamber followed by two assistants, surely other ambassadors aren't dumb enough to vote based on the title, he thought to himself. He walks up to the podium to declare his opinion, and begins, "fellow ambassadors, we must not vote based on the title since this is noncompliance with existing international resolution, those of you who have read the actual proposal may have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, handing over the responsibility of creating regulations to the WACC will diminish the purpose of this assembly, which is to create the regulations themselves. The other problem is the delegation of determining the necessity of the sterilisation to an Institutional review Board, which is ludicrous and unnecessary as doctors can do that themselves, and nothing stops IRBs from being corrupted by governments. I also dislike the use of "etc" in the title as it is inappropriate in titles. I would advise everyone here to vote AGAINST." He steps down from the podium.

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

"The delegation of NBH applauds the sentiment behind this legislation, and echoes the horror felt by many at the thought of the sterilisation of minors or medically incompetent people -- other than when necessary to preserve the life of that individual.

"However, this delegation echoes the sentiment of the delegation of Candlewhisper Archive that the protections afforded by this act appear to be afforded by #222 -- which protect a child from "excessive physical pain, injury or harm with malicious intent" or "behaviour resulting in emotional or mental trauma"; both of which the non-medically necessary sterilisation of a child could easily qualify as.

"This delegation also echoes concerns of other delegations about potential issues with legislation by the WACC.

"We are opposed for these reasons."

[Maowi]

OOC: Would it be legally possible for a future resolution on forced sterilisation to clarify the WACC's role in terms of Institutional Review Boards? If it were framed as adding duties to the WACC, thereby clarifying (without explicitly stating that it is a clarification of this resolution) the specific tasks given to the WACC, could it work? Because that's how I read it at first, so I voted for. If it's not possible that would probably change my vote.

[Plaskagar Tusdeta]

This resolution, if adopted, could be interpreted as forbidding services to transgender youth, and is therefore likely to be interpreted that way in some nations.

Furthermore, it contravenes the establishment of vat reproduction societies, mandating the abuse of children through the infliction of avoidable genetic ailments on them. Additionally to this point, lineages with early reproductive activity and hypersexualization of children are genetically advantaged in some environments, but they are catastrophic to the quality of care that children receive. Broad sterilization is an obligation created by our endeavors to oppose the abuse of children, now and forever, in this generation and in all future generations.

Children should not be born for the sole purpose of suffering to amuse religious elders. This regressive legislation is only likely to pass due to broad misunderstandings of its applicability in an environment of changing future technological potentials. Extant WA legislation already covers such necessary purposes as this bill might achieve.

[Imperium Anglorum]

About 'etc' and how it's never appeared in any law and how it's use is to unprofessional and how it's shocking for people to use Latin abbreviations when Germanic ones will do, see http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/38/contents.

In fact, it's so shocking, http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga?title=etc, since the start of the digital age, we have published 36 acts with it. Given that the site started in 1988, that's over one a year! The UK Parliament is defamed by such activity!

[The Cypher Nine]

The Cypher Nine is fully against any measure to prevent sterilization as every citizen in our great nation is sterile by birth. A review board will not be able to respect the finely maintained genetic environment that we have created within our community.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Cypher Nine is fully against any measure to prevent sterilization as every citizen in our great nation is sterile by birth. A review board will not be able to respect the finely maintained genetic environment that we have created within our community.

Then you don't need to do anything, because if they are all sterile already, no procedure needs approving.

[The Cypher Nine]

The Cypher Nine is fully against any measure to prevent sterilization as every citizen in our great nation is sterile by birth. A review board will not be able to respect the finely maintained genetic environment that we have created within our community.

Then you don't need to do anything, because if they are all sterile already, no procedure needs approving.

They are sterile by birth due to the genetic templates we apply which I would think legally would constitute a procedure under this legislation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So at that point, you'd argue that procedures applied to stones would do the same thing. Because personhood starts at birth.

[New Waldensia]

"Seeing as this measure is unnecessarily bureaucratic in nature, and contains no provisions or protections for the individuals in question, as the Delegate for New Waldensia and for the Federation of Conservative Nations, I cast my vote AGAINST."