[DRAFT] Repeal GA#456: “Freedom To Seek Medical Care II”

[Ashaie]

Repeal: “Freedom To Seek Medical Care II”

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding GA#456’s intent to grant patients the right to seek foreign healthcare,

Noting that the resolution is in fact the second passed iteration of this proposal, and that there have not been any changes to some of the clauses the first iteration was repealed on.

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, the target resolution does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to hostile nations in general.

Disappointed that regarding Clause 1, there is no definition of medically necessary in the resolution, which might allow nations to declare that there is no medical necessity for their citizens to leave.

Agreeing with the intent of Clause 4 to prohibit legal action being taken against citizens who seek medical care by their home country, however

Dismayed that the wording of this clause effectively grants immunity to anyone seeking medical treatment abroad in a member nation, as it “prohibits member nations from taking legal action” against them as long as no other resolutions are violated, ignoring any national law which is not covered by the General Assembly.

Appalled that there is no clause which addresses the possible spread of contagious diseases across borders, and that this resolution could therefore allow an infected person to introduce a disease to a previously uninfected nation.

Believing that the target resolution inhibits national legislation and fails to properly consider the safety of patients seeking treatment abroad.

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #456.

“Hope this repeal is worth at least some salt, everyone.”

(OOC: First attempt at my own drafting, huh. Done a little revision of this in a Word Document and have read some relevant past resolutions, so hopefully it's not bad at least. Is there a way to refer to the “&#8206” error? Should I refer to it at all? I noticed the repeal of the original calls it a "scrivner's error", so would I do that?)

Repeal: “Freedom To Seek Medical Care II”

---

Applauding the resolution in question’s intent to grant patients the right to seek foreign healthcare,

Noting that the resolution is in fact the second passed iteration of this proposal, and that there have not been any changes for some of the clauses the first iteration was repealed on.

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, the target resolution does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to hostile nations in general.

Disappointed that regarding Clause 1, there is no definition of medically necessary in the resolution, which might allow nations to declare that there is no medical necessity for their citizens to leave.

Puzzled that the resolution also states Clause 1 is "subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly", instead of just existing resolutions, and believing that this can also be corrected in a replacement.

Agreeing with the intent of Clause 4 to prohibit legal action being taken against citizens who seek medical care by their home country, However

Dismayed that the wording of this clause effectively grants immunity to anyone seeking medical treatment abroad in a member nation, as it “prohibits member nations from taking legal action” against them as long as no other resolutions are violated, ignoring any national law which is not covered by the General Assembly.

Appalled that there is no clause which addresses the possible spread of contagious diseases across borders, and that this resolution could therefore allow an infected person to introduce a disease to a previously uninfected nation.

Hoping that once again, a more effective replacement can be passed.

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #456.

[Kenmoria]

“This repeal contains some very compelling arguments. However, there is some room for improvement, which I have marked on the draft on red pen.”

Repeal: “Freedom To Seek Medical Care II”

---

You need to have something, grammatically, that’s doing all of the verbs. Therefore, you should add ‘The World Assembly’ or ‘The General Assembly’ at the start of the repeal.

Applauding the resolution in question’s intent to grant patients the right to seek foreign healthcare, At this point, you haven’t mentioned which resolution you’re talking about, so I suggest mentioning ‘Freedom to Seek Medical Care II’ or ‘GA #456’ somewhere in this clause.

Noting that the resolution is in fact the second passed iteration of this proposal, and that there have not been any changes for some of the clauses the first iteration was repealed on. You want ‘changes to’ rather than ‘changes for’.

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, it does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to hostile nations in general. What’s ‘it’ here? Replace that pronoun with ‘the target resolution’ or ‘GA #456’ or something else that is more specific. However, this is a good point.

Disappointed that regarding Clause 1, there is no definition of medically necessary in the resolution, which might allow nations to declare that there is no medical necessity for their citizens to leave. This is a weaker point, since ‘medically necessary’ only really has one accepted definition, and member states are required to comply in good faith with passed resolutions due to GA #002.

Puzzled that the resolution also states Clause 1 is "subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly", instead of just existing resolutions, and believing that this can also be corrected in a replacement. This is just a wording choice, and doesn’t need correcting. Remove this clause.

Agreeing with the intent of Clause 4 to prohibit legal action being taken against citizens who seek medical care by their home country, However Why is ‘however’ capitalised here?

Dismayed that the wording of this clause effectively grants immunity to anyone seeking medical treatment abroad in a member nation, as it “prohibits member nations from taking legal action” against them as long as no other resolutions are violated, ignoring any national law which is not covered by the General Assembly. This is a very good point.

Appalled that there is no clause which addresses the possible spread of contagious diseases across borders, and that this resolution could therefore allow an infected person to introduce a disease to a previously uninfected nation. See Rights of the Quarantined.

Hoping that once again, a more effective replacement can be passed. This clause is very generic, and also doesn’t add any argument to your repeal. I suggest making it more specific to the target resolution, so that it can serve as a little summary of your strongest points.

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #456.

(OOC: On a different note, I suggest not mentioning the typographic error, since it affects only aesthetics.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

No objections in principle to a repeal.

[Ashaie]

“This repeal contains some very compelling arguments. However, there is some room for improvement, which I have marked on the draft on red pen.”

Repeal: “Freedom To Seek Medical Care II”

---

You need to have something, grammatically, that’s doing all of the verbs. Therefore, you should add ‘The World Assembly’ or ‘The General Assembly’ at the start of the repeal.

Applauding the resolution in question’s intent to grant patients the right to seek foreign healthcare, At this point, you haven’t mentioned which resolution you’re talking about, so I suggest mentioning ‘Freedom to Seek Medical Care II’ or ‘GA #456’ somewhere in this clause.

Noting that the resolution is in fact the second passed iteration of this proposal, and that there have not been any changes for some of the clauses the first iteration was repealed on. You want ‘changes to’ rather than ‘changes for’.

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, it does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to hostile nations in general. What’s ‘it’ here? Replace that pronoun with ‘the target resolution’ or ‘GA #456’ or something else that is more specific. However, this is a good point.

Disappointed that regarding Clause 1, there is no definition of medically necessary in the resolution, which might allow nations to declare that there is no medical necessity for their citizens to leave. This is a weaker point, since ‘medically necessary’ only really has one accepted definition, and member states are required to comply in good faith with passed resolutions due to GA #002.

Puzzled that the resolution also states Clause 1 is "subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly", instead of just existing resolutions, and believing that this can also be corrected in a replacement. This is just a wording choice, and doesn’t need correcting. Remove this clause.

Agreeing with the intent of Clause 4 to prohibit legal action being taken against citizens who seek medical care by their home country, However Why is ‘however’ capitalised here?

Dismayed that the wording of this clause effectively grants immunity to anyone seeking medical treatment abroad in a member nation, as it “prohibits member nations from taking legal action” against them as long as no other resolutions are violated, ignoring any national law which is not covered by the General Assembly. This is a very good point.

Appalled that there is no clause which addresses the possible spread of contagious diseases across borders, and that this resolution could therefore allow an infected person to introduce a disease to a previously uninfected nation. See Rights of the Quarantined.

Hoping that once again, a more effective replacement can be passed. This clause is very generic, and also doesn’t add any argument to your repeal. I suggest making it more specific to the target resolution, so that it can serve as a little summary of your strongest points.

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #456.

"Thanks for the review and your comments, Ambassador. I shall make the grammar edits."

Applauding the resolution in question’s intent to grant patients the right to seek foreign healthcare, At this point, you haven’t mentioned which resolution you’re talking about, so I suggest mentioning ‘Freedom to Seek Medical Care II’ or ‘GA #456’ somewhere in this clause.

"Is the mention of the resolution not covered by the title? Though of course, I see no harm in mentioning it at the start of the repeal either way."

Disappointed that regarding Clause 1, there is no definition of medically necessary in the resolution, which might allow nations to declare that there is no medical necessity for their citizens to leave. This is a weaker point, since ‘medically necessary’ only really has one accepted definition, and member states are required to comply in good faith with passed resolutions due to GA #002.

"Acknowledged, so member states must interpret medical necessity in good faith?”

Puzzled that the resolution also states Clause 1 is "subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly", instead of just existing resolutions, and believing that this can also be corrected in a replacement. This is just a wording choice, and doesn’t need correcting. Remove this clause.

"Understood, I shall remove this."

Appalled that there is no clause which addresses the possible spread of contagious diseases across borders, and that this resolution could therefore allow an infected person to introduce a disease to a previously uninfected nation. See Rights of the Quarantined.

"That requires for all infected people to be moved into a quarantine, but there isn't a way to know everyone who’s infected aside from being tested. There’s no requirement for people leaving to be screened unless recommended by the EPARC, and there should be.”
(OOC: Honestly, I missed that resolution when I was researching relevant ones. I hope I haven't misunderstood or overlooked parts of it now.)

Hoping that once again, a more effective replacement can be passed. This clause is very generic, and also doesn’t add any argument to your repeal. I suggest making it more specific to the target resolution, so that it can serve as a little summary of your strongest points.

“I shall endeavour to make this clause more specific, thank you for your time in making these comments.”

[Ashaie]

Believing that the target resolution inhibits national legislation and fails to properly consider the safety of patients seeking treatment abroad.

"Replaced the original 'Hoping' clause with a more specific one... does anyone have further comment?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"If the delegation from Imperium Anglorum has no objections, neither do I."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, the target resolution does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to hostile nations in general.

Why should one want to prohibit the entry into hostile Nations if this is a necessary step for someone's Health? Geopolitical strategies must never be given more value than Life, which will always remain Sacred.

--Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, M.S.C., patron of immigrants and hospital administrators
Membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

[Maowi]

"We're in support, mainly on the basis of the issues outlined in your "dismayed" and appalled clauses.

"Your "disapointed" clause seems weak and simply detracts from the rest of the argument; the terminology "medically necessary" isn't particularly ambiguous and you haven't pointed out any especially pressing issues with it. I advise either removing the clause or going into greater depth to explain the possible complications arising from the target's language.

"Does the author intend to write a replacement?"

[Ashaie]

"If the delegation from Imperium Anglorum has no objections, neither do I."

"Thank you, delegate. It is pleasing to hear that you have no objection to the proposal."

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, the target resolution does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to hostile nations in general.

Why should one want to prohibit the entry into hostile Nations if this is a necessary step for someone's Health? Geopolitical strategies must never be given more value than Life, which will always remain Sacred.

--Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, M.S.C., patron of immigrants and hospital administrators
Membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

"Of course I agree that life is a sacred matter, and so I don't think our citizens should just be waltzing into a war-affected nation, unless it's both reasonably safe and necessary for their health."

"We're in support, mainly on the basis of the issues outlined in your "dismayed" and appalled clauses.

"Your "disapointed" clause seems weak and simply detracts from the rest of the argument; the terminology "medically necessary" isn't particularly ambiguous and you haven't pointed out any especially pressing issues with it. I advise either removing the clause or going into greater depth to explain the possible complications arising from the target's language.

"Thank you for the support, Doctor. As for the "disappointed" clause, I take an issue with the fact that though nations have to interpret it in good faith, it doesn't specify what level of medical necessity there needs to be. Necessary for life? Necessary for ability to work properly?"

"Does the author intend to write a replacement?"

"I can task myself with writing a replacement, yes." (OOC: I intend to, I just thought it might be overconfident of me to post anything before getting feedback on this repeal attempt. Would you vote for it currently, or should I draft a suitable replacement first?)

[Morover]

(OOC: I intend to, I just thought it might be overconfident of me to post anything before getting feedback on this repeal attempt. Would you vote for it currently, or should I draft a suitable replacement first?)

Draft the replacement to as near-perfect as you can get it before submitting the repeal.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

"Of course I agree that life is a sacred matter, and so I don't think our citizens should just be waltzing into a war-affected nation, unless it's both reasonably safe and necessary for their health."

In which case I would suggest allowing Nations only to prohibit such travel when the destination is in an armed conflict. Not all hostile Nations are war-affected.

--Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, M.S.C., patron of immigrants and hospital administrators
Membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

[Ashaie]

(OOC: I intend to, I just thought it might be overconfident of me to post anything before getting feedback on this repeal attempt. Would you vote for it currently, or should I draft a suitable replacement first?)

Draft the replacement to as near-perfect as you can get it before submitting the repeal.

(Fair enough, I'll start a thread after getting it to a postable level.)

"Of course I agree that life is a sacred matter, and so I don't think our citizens should just be waltzing into a war-affected nation, unless it's both reasonably safe and necessary for their health."

In which case I would suggest allowing Nations only to prohibit such travel when the destination is in an armed conflict. Not all hostile Nations are war-affected.
--Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, M.S.C., patron of immigrants and hospital administrators
Membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

"You make a good point. Would it satisfy you if I changed hostile to something along the lines of 'actively militant' or indeed 'engaged in armed conflict'?"

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

In which case I would suggest allowing Nations only to prohibit such travel when the destination is in an armed conflict. Not all hostile Nations are war-affected.
--Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, M.S.C., patron of immigrants and hospital administrators
Membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

"You make a good point. Would it satisfy you if I changed hostile to something along the lines of 'actively militant' or indeed 'engaged in armed conflict'?"

I would suggest changing the clause to something along the lines of...

Concerned that despite allowing member nations to prohibit entry to a nation they are in conflict with, the target resolution does not allow member nations to prohibit entry to nations engaged in armed conflicts and/or severe violations of international law.

--Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, M.S.C., patron of immigrants and hospital administrators
Membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

[Kenmoria]

“Grammatically, all your clauses apart from the last ought to end with a comma or semicolon rather than a full stop.”