Page 1 of 3
[DRAFT] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc"
Posted:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:36 amby East Meranopirus
(Replacement has been drafted here)Replacement shelved for now. I'm hoping it could be included in Maowi's proposal if this repeal is passed.
Recognising the efforts made in GA #472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc to prevent unnecessary sterilisation of minors;
However dismayed that the resolution bears a misleading title, as it does not actually ban the sterilisation of minors;
Asserting that the purpose of independent review can be achieved with individual qualified medical professionals;
Concerned that Institutional Review Boards, as defined by GA#111, are bureaucratic institutions that are not required to be staffed with medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such institutions;
Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;
Alarmed that clause two freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;
Fearing the precedent could in the future cause the approval of delegates from the World Assembly member nations to become irrelevant to new legislation created directly by the multitudous committees;
Confident that regulations to ensure the proper review procedures for the sterilisation of minors can be instituted by further legislation without reducing the relevancy of member nations in the decisions concerning their own future;
Hereby repeals GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".
Posted:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:02 amby Kenmoria
“Saying that the target ‘in no way’ prohibits the sterilisation of minors is misleading. The target does prohibit the sterilisation of minors in cases where there is no medical necessity, which seems the ideal middle ground.”
Posted:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:34 pmby East Meranopirus
Kenmoria wrote:“Saying that the target ‘in no way’ prohibits the sterilisation of minors is misleading. The target does prohibit the sterilisation of minors in cases where there is no medical necessity, which seems the ideal middle ground.”
"That's fair enough, and I will change it, though I still believe it's misleading, given its capacity to be interpreted otherwise."
Posted:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:37 pmby East Meranopirus
"It seems to me that a replacement may not be needed after all, since the Patient's Rights Act already guarantees independent review of medical procedures, including sterilisation. I have updated the draft to reflect this."
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:11 amby Maowi
East Meranopirus wrote:Noting that GA #29,
Patient's Rights Act, already ensures that non-emergency medical procedures, including reproductive sterilisations, can only be performed if deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by a medical professional, thus already achieving the purpose of independent review;
"I do not believe this to be correct ... the resolution in question guarantees patients the right to non-emergency medical procedures where they are necessary and beneficial, but does not include a ban on such procedures where they are
not both necessary and beneficial. Given that clause VIII of GAR 29 stipulates that 'patient' refers to a legal guardian where the 'true' patient is legally incompetent, parents are still able to consent to unnecessary sterilisations on their children's behalf - unless, of course, the member nation has already banned this."
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:41 amby East Meranopirus
Maowi wrote:East Meranopirus wrote:Noting that GA #29,
Patient's Rights Act, already ensures that non-emergency medical procedures, including reproductive sterilisations, can only be performed if deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by a medical professional, thus already achieving the purpose of independent review;
"I do not believe this to be correct ... the resolution in question guarantees patients the right to non-emergency medical procedures where they are necessary and beneficial, but does not include a ban on such procedures where they are
not both necessary and beneficial. Given that clause VIII of GAR 29 stipulates that 'patient' refers to a legal guardian where the 'true' patient is legally incompetent, parents are still able to consent to unnecessary sterilisations on their children's behalf - unless, of course, the member nation has already banned this."
"Ah...I stand corrected. However, I note that the target resolution does not take away the right of parents to consent to sterilisation on a minor's behalf, it adds an extra step to the process of gaining approval, which, while well-intentioned, is unnecessary, hence the need for a
replacement."
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:39 amby Maowi
East Meranopirus wrote:Maowi wrote:"I do not believe this to be correct ... the resolution in question guarantees patients the right to non-emergency medical procedures where they are necessary and beneficial, but does not include a ban on such procedures where they are
not both necessary and beneficial. Given that clause VIII of GAR 29 stipulates that 'patient' refers to a legal guardian where the 'true' patient is legally incompetent, parents are still able to consent to unnecessary sterilisations on their children's behalf - unless, of course, the member nation has already banned this."
"Ah...I stand corrected. However, I note that the target resolution does not take away the right of parents to consent to sterilisation on a minor's behalf, it adds an extra step to the process of gaining approval, which, while well-intentioned, is unnecessary, hence the need for a
replacement."
"Surely if GAR 29 reserves to legal guardians the right to consent to medical procedures on behalf of their ward, any legislation removing that right would be illegal for contradiction?"
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:26 amby Kenmoria
“Where you put ‘the resolution’ in your first clause, you should probably put the legislation’s full name.”
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:33 amby Marxist Germany
Maowi wrote:East Meranopirus wrote:Noting that GA #29,
Patient's Rights Act, already ensures that non-emergency medical procedures, including reproductive sterilisations, can only be performed if deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by a medical professional, thus already achieving the purpose of independent review;
"I do not believe this to be correct ... the resolution in question guarantees patients the right to non-emergency medical procedures where they are necessary and beneficial, but does not include a ban on such procedures where they are
not both necessary and beneficial. Given that clause VIII of GAR 29 stipulates that 'patient' refers to a legal guardian where the 'true' patient is legally incompetent, parents are still able to consent to unnecessary sterilisations on their children's behalf - unless, of course, the member nation has already banned this."
"Ambassador, I believe this is already covered by General Assembly resolution number 222..." He places his suitcase on the table and puts in the code to unlock it. The suitcase opens and some papers fly out. "Dont mind these.." he quickly added. He looks through the suitcase until he finds a paper, he takes all the other papers that went out of the suitcase and crams them in before quickly closing the suitcase. He hands the paper to the Maowese ambassador. "As you can see here," he points to a a paragraph in the paper
Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
...
iii. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
"Forced sterilisation is very likely to cause severe mental trauma for the child, which is why I believe a replacement isn't necessary unless it will address all forced sterilisation."
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:57 amby Maowi
"In the case of minors, all sterilisation is 'forced sterilisation,' as they are unable to give informed consent. So it is perhaps possible for a minor to undergo 'forced sterilisation' due to simply a lack of understanding of the procedure, and therefore not be too distressed by it. I admit the cases are rare, but they must not be unaccounted for. Of course, I do agree that the topic could also be covered in a broader proposal on forced sterilisation."
Posted:
Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:01 pmby Araraukar
IC:
"When properly executed in a medical facility by proficient medical staff, sterilization is no more traumatizing to a child - or adult for that matter - than any other medical procedure. Children are usually anesthetized for even for minor surgical procedures anyway, the kinds that an adult might just be numbed for. Anyone wishing to read more of it from the World Assembly's central library, look for "keyhole surgery" as a starting point. Besides, mutilating baby penises continues to be just fine in the World Assembly's opinion, so I don't really see the organization giving a flying fuck about traumatizing medical operations done on children..."OOC: Alternatively, Araraukar might be using the Child Abuse Ban to refuse the right to mutilate baby penises despite the resolution saying it has to be considered ok.
But more seriously speaking, for most little kids
any "going to hospital and staying a night away from home and family" is the most traumatic bit of any operation.
Posted:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:55 amby East Meranopirus
"We have updated the draft with some more detail as well as some grammatical corrections. Hopefully, this will be submitted soon so that these unreasonable regulations may burden member nations no longer."
Posted:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:15 pmby WayNeacTia
Further concerned that clause 2 essentially allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission to create regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, thereby undermining the purpose of this institution;
"You need to expand on this and hammer it home. This is the primary crux of why it was opposed by many of us in the first place, and really is the only weak spot to target in a repeal. The rest is fluff."
Wayne
Posted:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:49 amby East Meranopirus
Wayneactia wrote:Further concerned that clause 2 essentially allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission to create regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, thereby undermining the purpose of this institution;
"You need to expand on this and hammer it home. This is the primary crux of why it was opposed by many of us in the first place, and really is the only weak spot to target in a repeal. The rest is fluff."
Wayne
"If you, sir, have been living under a rock, then it will be my pleasure to inform you that many Delegations have opposed the target resolution based on points raised elsewhere in this repeal proposal. However, I did take your suggestion into account and flesh out that area out a bit more."
Posted:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:14 amby Marxist Germany
East Meranopirus wrote:Wayneactia wrote:Further concerned that clause 2 essentially allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission to create regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, thereby undermining the purpose of this institution;
"You need to expand on this and hammer it home. This is the primary crux of why it was opposed by many of us in the first place, and really is the only weak spot to target in a repeal. The rest is fluff."
Wayne
"If you, sir, have been living under a rock, then it will be my pleasure to inform you that many Delegations have opposed the target resolution based on points raised elsewhere in this repeal proposal. However, I did take your suggestion into account and flesh out that area out a bit more."
"Ambassador Wayne said that it was the primary reason for opposition to many other delegations, he did not say it was the only one. I suggest listening carefully and thinking twice before questioning someone's intelligence."
Posted:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:28 amby East Meranopirus
Marxist Germany wrote:East Meranopirus wrote:"If you, sir, have been living under a rock, then it will be my pleasure to inform you that many Delegations have opposed the target resolution based on points raised elsewhere in this repeal proposal. However, I did take your suggestion into account and flesh out that area out a bit more."
"Ambassador Wayne said that it was the primary reason for opposition to many other delegations, he did not say it was the only one. I suggest listening carefully and thinking twice before questioning someone's intelligence."
"He seems to suggest that it is the only part of the resolution worth targeting in a repeal, by saying it is the only weak spot and the rest is fluff. I did not question his intelligence, merely that they have ignored the legitimate points raised by others. I suggest listening carefully and thinking twice before saying someone did something they didn't do, or vice versa.
Now, I would prefer we get back on track and discuss the actual amended proposal."
Posted:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:32 amby Maowi
East Meranopirus wrote:Concerned that the creation of Independent Review Boards are a wasteful use of government resources;
" 'Creation' is a singular noun, not plural - so the World Assembly is concerned that the creation of IRBs
is, not are, a wasteful use of government resources.
Concluding that the purpose of the World Assembly, being a place where all member nations could be represented, would be undermined by this precedence;
" 'Precedence' has a different meaning to 'precedent'. I think the latter is what you need here."
Posted:
Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:42 amby East Meranopirus
Maowi wrote:East Meranopirus wrote:Concerned that the creation of Independent Review Boards are a wasteful use of government resources;
" 'Creation' is a singular noun, not plural - so the World Assembly is concerned that the creation of IRBs
is, not are, a wasteful use of government resources.
Concluding that the purpose of the World Assembly, being a place where all member nations could be represented, would be undermined by this precedence;
" 'Precedence' has a different meaning to 'precedent'. I think the latter is what you need here."
OOC: The new Kenmoria?
Thanks for the fixes.
Posted:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:19 amby Wallenburg
East Meranopirus wrote:Concerned that the Independent Review Boards created by GA #472 are a wasteful use of government resources;
How?
Worried that an Independent Review Board would cause valuable time to be wasted in emergency or time-sensitive matters;
How?
Pointing out that simply having a Board with multiple opinions does not necessarily result in a better decision;
An independent body of experts in the matter at hand is by its nature going to make better decisions.
Otherwise, this is a pretty solid repeal.
Posted:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:36 amby East Meranopirus
Wallenburg wrote:East Meranopirus wrote:Concerned that the Independent Review Boards created by GA #472 are a wasteful use of government resources;
How?
Worried that an Independent Review Board would cause valuable time to be wasted in emergency or time-sensitive matters;
How?
Pointing out that simply having a Board with multiple opinions does not necessarily result in a better decision;
An independent body of experts in the matter at hand is by its nature going to make better decisions.
Otherwise, this is a pretty solid repeal.
I've made changes to the draft to hopefully explain those two clauses better, and removed the last one (since I didn't think it was a great argument either)
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:50 amby East Meranopirus
Dadi01 wrote:East Meranopirus wrote:I've made changes to the draft to hopefully explain those two clauses better, and removed the last one (since I didn't think it was a great argument either)
Further concerned that clause 2 essentially allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission to create regulations on behalf of the World Assembly;
?
Read the target resolution. It basically says so.
I want to move forward this repeal quickly, since there's not too much content to address, so I'm putting it on LAST CALL, and invite everyone to share their opinions and any problems they may have. Submission will be in 2 days otherwise.
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:20 amby Kenmoria
“Your ‘understanding’ clause doesn’t quite make sense, in my opinion.”
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:19 amby Araraukar
OOC: You should replace the word "essentially" with the word "freely".
And you should probably remove the Understanding clause entirely.
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:23 pmby East Meranopirus
Changes made in accordance to Araraukar's suggestions.
Posted:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:05 pmby Araraukar
OOC: Rewrite suggestion. Changed bits in blue.
Recognising the efforts made in GA #472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc to prevent unnecessary sterilisation of minors;
However dismayed that the resolution bears a misleading title, as it does not actually ban the sterilisation of minors;
Concerned that the Independent Review Boards created by GA #472 are bureaucratic institutions that do not need to be staffed by medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such an institution;
Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;
Alarmed that clause two freely allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;
Fearing the precedent could in the future cause the approval of delegates from the World Assembly member nations to become irrelevant to new legislation created directly by the multitudous committees;
Confident that regulations to ensure the proper review procedures for the sterilisation of minors can be instituted by further legislation without reducing the relevancy of member nations in the decisions concerning their own future;
Hereby Repeals GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".