[On Hold] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc"

[Marxist Germany]

"From my reading I have discerned that the following:

to ensure that sterilisations of minors or other non-legally competent peope are approved if and only if the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person has been certified;

Is a requirement that addresses your issue."

"Congratulations for ripping this from all context entirely. It is only mandated that decisions by IRBs be overseen, not all decisions on the matter ever. Currently, the two are equivalent. If you repeal the target, they will not be equivalent."

"Even without an IRB, the sterilisation of minors or other non-competent people by force would be illegal as per mandate 2."

[Maowi]

"Congratulations for ripping this from all context entirely. It is only mandated that decisions by IRBs be overseen, not all decisions on the matter ever. Currently, the two are equivalent. If you repeal the target, they will not be equivalent."

"Even without an IRB, the sterilisation of minors or other non-competent people by force would be illegal as per mandate 2."

"Exactly. So cases in which the sterilisation is necessary for the minor's long-term health would not be covered. Your target does the job effectively and repealing it would do far more harm than good."

[Marxist Germany]

"Even without an IRB, the sterilisation of minors or other non-competent people by force would be illegal as per mandate 2."

"Exactly. So cases in which the sterilisation is necessary for the minor's long-term health would not be covered. Your target does the job effectively and repealing it would do far more harm than good."

"If the patient consents to the operation, they are able to undergo sterilisation."

[Maowi]

"Exactly. So cases in which the sterilisation is necessary for the minor's long-term health would not be covered. Your target does the job effectively and repealing it would do far more harm than good."

"If the patient consents to the operation, they are able to undergo sterilisation."

"Minors and other incompetents are legally unable to give informed consent, ambassador ..."

[Marxist Germany]

"If the patient consents to the operation, they are able to undergo sterilisation."

"Minors and other incompetents are legally unable to give informed consent, ambassador ..."

"Which is why Patient's Rights Act takes care of that issue."

[Maowi]

"PRA guarantees those unable to give consent access to emergency medical treatment. That is very different to a treatment that preserves the patient's long-term health. By definition, an emergency requires immediate action. The situation to which the target refers may include emergencies, but is by no means limited to them."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"PRA guarantees those unable to give consent access to emergency medical treatment. That is very different to a treatment that preserves the patient's long-term health. By definition, an emergency requires immediate action. The situation to which the target refers may include emergencies, but is by no means limited to them."

That is not how I would read the PRA. It is not limited to emergency care, but to ALL procedures that are legally permissible. The PRA says (emphasis added):

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.

then goes on to state:

For the purposes of this legislation, "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.

Legal guardian is explicitly conflated with patient under the PRA. Therefore minors and the legally incompetent CAN give consent through the actions of their legal guardians and receive "treatment".

OOC: NB: Which I actually OPPOSE and believe the target does a good job in limiting in a much more acceptable fashion, see below.

---

That said. We oppose the repeal on other, pragmatic grounds. The PRA and 487 are far too permissive about sterilization, and the more stringent requirements of the target are desirable, and morally required.

[Marxist Germany]

That said. We oppose the repeal on other, pragmatic grounds. The PRA and 487 are far too permissive about sterilization, and the more stringent requirements of the target are desirable, and morally required.

OOC: I am unsure as to how it is less stringent, as PRA states:

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.

Which means that the procedure must be deemed necessary AND beneficial to the patient by their physician or professional before they can undergo it, this is now much different to having an IRB approve it and is less bureaucratic.

[Maowi]

That said. We oppose the repeal on other, pragmatic grounds. The PRA and 487 are far too permissive about sterilization, and the more stringent requirements of the target are desirable, and morally required.

OOC: I am unsure as to how it is less stringent, as PRA states:

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.

Which means that the procedure must be deemed necessary AND beneficial to the patient by their physician or professional before they can undergo it, this is now much different to having an IRB approve it and is less bureaucratic.

OOC: Whereas the target requires IRBs to have "certified after review the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person" before granting approval, the PRA only requires the opinion of one single medicial professional, not necessarily equipped with the expertise to address the specific issue. Particularly, there is no requirement, unlike in the target in conjunction with GAR 486, for said medical professional to deny approval of the sterilisation if it is objectively not necessary or beneficial.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I am unsure as to how it is less stringent, as PRA states:

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.

Which means that the procedure must be deemed necessary AND beneficial to the patient by their physician or professional before they can undergo it, this is now much different to having an IRB approve it and is less bureaucratic.

OOC: Whereas the target requires IRBs to have "certified after review the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person" before granting approval, the PRA only requires the opinion of one single medicial professional, not necessarily equipped with the expertise to address the specific issue. Particularly, there is no requirement, unlike in the target in conjunction with GAR 486, for said medical professional to deny approval of the sterilisation if it is objectively not necessary or beneficial.

OOC: IRBs can be staffed with incompetent children and the WA wouldn't bat an eye.

[Maowi]

OOC: Whereas the target requires IRBs to have "certified after review the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person" before granting approval, the PRA only requires the opinion of one single medicial professional, not necessarily equipped with the expertise to address the specific issue. Particularly, there is no requirement, unlike in the target in conjunction with GAR 486, for said medical professional to deny approval of the sterilisation if it is objectively not necessary or beneficial.

OOC: IRBs can be staffed with incompetent children and the WA wouldn't bat an eye.

OOC: I appreciate that your example was hyperbole - I think - but an IRB is not an IRB if it is staffed with incompetent children. Moreover, the difference is that certification after review is mandated in the target. It would be a bad faith interpretation that left it up to children or other unqualified people to carry out that "review".

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: IRBs can be staffed with incompetent children and the WA wouldn't bat an eye.

OOC: I appreciate that your example was hyperbole - I think - but an IRB is not an IRB if it is staffed with incompetent children. Moreover, the difference is that certification after review is mandated in the target. It would be a bad faith interpretation that left it up to children or other unqualified people to carry out that "review".

OOC: It's not bad faith if no provisions on staffing exist, furthermore, the lack of a definition for what constitutes an IRB renders your first point moot.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I appreciate that your example was hyperbole - I think - but an IRB is not an IRB if it is staffed with incompetent children. Moreover, the difference is that certification after review is mandated in the target. It would be a bad faith interpretation that left it up to children or other unqualified people to carry out that "review".

OOC: It's not bad faith if no provisions on staffing exist, furthermore, the lack of a definition for what constitutes an IRB renders your first point moot.

(OOC: I think that having an IRB that does not have the capability to effectively make sterilisation decisions as detailed in the resolution would not quality as good-faith compliance.)

[Maowi]

the lack of a definition for what constitutes an IRB renders your first point moot.

OOC: The argument that "it's not defined so it could mean anything" is a dishonest one. The term "Institutional Review Board" is in common use IRL and translates pretty unambiguously into this context.

[Marxist Germany]

the lack of a definition for what constitutes an IRB renders your first point moot.

OOC: The argument that "it's not defined so it could mean anything" is a dishonest one. The term "Institutional Review Board" is in common use IRL and translates pretty unambiguously into this context.

OOC: Even if a nation has to staff an IRB with doctors, it can just fill it with pro-government doctors that would do as it sees fit.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: From the decision on a previously submitted and challenged repeal of the target:

... Thus, as the proposal does ban the sterilisation of minors, it is an Honest Mistake to say the resolution does not. Such an interpretation is not a colorable interpretation, and unfairly misconstrues the operation of GAR#472...

LInky

The disappointed clause appears to fall into this same trap.

[Maowi]

OOC: The argument that "it's not defined so it could mean anything" is a dishonest one. The term "Institutional Review Board" is in common use IRL and translates pretty unambiguously into this context.

OOC: Even if a nation has to staff an IRB with doctors, it can just fill it with pro-government doctors that would do as it sees fit.

OOC: ... Except the target doesn't give governments leeway to do as they see fit.

Also ... this clause ...

Worried that the vagueness of the term, "long-term health", allows member-states to sterilise minors citing reasons such as prevention of cancer in the genitalia, which can be deemed as a long-term health benefit by the Institutional Review Board,

... was confusing me, because I thought that it was just pointing out a possible emergency situation and being worried that the target allows the emergency to be fixed. But is your point that the target allows a hypothetical future cancer as a justification for a sterilisation of a minor??? Because that it doesn't do. A hypothetical is not a necessity.

[...] which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Pulled for potential legality concerns.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Pulled for potential legality concerns.

(OOC: It seems that you should remove your ‘disappointed’ clause, or clarify it such that it no longer counts as an honest mistake.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I have made several edits and intend on resubmitting it this minor.

[Maowi]

OOC:

Worried that the vagueness of the term, "long-term health", which can allow member-states to abuse the target in order to sterilise minors and incompetent people,

This is still not accurate. It is also does not make sense grammatically.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:

Worried that the vagueness of the term, "long-term health", which can allow member-states to abuse the target in order to sterilise minors and incompetent people,

This is still not accurate. It is also does not make sense grammatically.

OOC: Grammar has been fixed, I am unsure as to how it is inaccurate.

[Kenmoria]

“I’m not sure how exactly the term ‘incompetent persons’ could be abused by member states. In a legal context, that term has only one meaning which is fairly unambiguous, at least insofar as member states couldn’t reasonably decide that the average person falls under it.”

[Marxist Germany]

“I’m not sure how exactly the term ‘incompetent persons’ could be abused by member states. In a legal context, that term has only one meaning which is fairly unambiguous, at least insofar as member states couldn’t reasonably decide that the average person falls under it.”

"A member-state can decide that people of specific ethnicities are "incompetent"."

[Kenmoria]

“I’m not sure how exactly the term ‘incompetent persons’ could be abused by member states. In a legal context, that term has only one meaning which is fairly unambiguous, at least insofar as member states couldn’t reasonably decide that the average person falls under it.”

"A member-state can decide that people of specific ethnicities are "incompetent"."

“That doesn’t seem to be a good-faith interpretation of what the word ‘incompetent’ means, since that interpretation doesn’t align with reality.”