[PASSED] Supporting People with Disabilities

[Greater Cesnica]

guarantee, to all people with disabilities, the right to all available, and relevant details regarding their personal medical condition,; granted it’s in their doctor’s capacity to provide such information;;

Remove the things in red and add the things in blue. Also, capitalize the first letter in all of your (a)(b)(c)(d) etc. clauses. Otherwise, draft looks good, and you have my full support.

[CoraSpia]

"Might I suggest a new sub-clause to clause 2?
(D) Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others."

[Free Las Pinas]

OOC: I’ve incorporated all of the above suggestions. Thank you!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Section 2(d) (Edit. Clause in full is 'Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities, excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others') prohibits people from being sent to rehab by a court order–

where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others;

which limits forced rehab provisions to cases where it can be shown that someone is a danger to others, which is almost never. Broadly speaking, public health officials have an interest in ensuring that people do not overdose and die, which is why generally speaking, such forced rehab provisions are used when someone is a danger to others or to the self.

[Old Hope]

[*]Reaffirms the right to not be discriminated on the grounds of disability.

Uh, no please not. Reasonable discrimination on the grounds of disability is fine.

[Greater Cesnica]

[*]Reaffirms the right to not be discriminated on the grounds of disability.

Uh, no please not. Reasonable discrimination on the grounds of disability is fine.

Define "reasonable discrimination".

[Westinor]

The North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs supports this proposal, and our delegate will be voting accordingly. For further information on our stance, please see our IFV dispatch here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1509003

[CoraSpia]

Section 2(d) (Edit. Clause in full is 'Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities, excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others') prohibits people from being sent to rehab by a court order–

where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others;

which limits forced rehab provisions to cases where it can be shown that someone is a danger to others, which is almost never. Broadly speaking, public health officials have an interest in ensuring that people do not overdose and die, which is why generally speaking, such forced rehab provisions are used when someone is a danger to others or to the self.

I suggested this addition to the proposal taking this into account. In the end, forcing people into rehab against their will is far too great an interference with the right to refuse medical treatment.

[Texkentuck]

If Texkentuck were of this WA the nation would support this Proposal.


General William Walt VonVorkinKophfburg- General of The Texkentuck Committee for State Security.
Ambassador

[Weatherwand]

Just wanted to chip in my two cents,
I don't think this motion is debatable, i.e. it is like extremely hard to construct arguments against this motion except for derogatory "arguments"
Where in the last (or last two) Motion about electronic security it could be (at least) argued that by decreasing electronic security it allows for more secure environment cause police can use them to get more evidence, etc
Nevertheless I voted for Aff. Good job!

[CoraSpia]

Just wanted to chip in my two cents,
I don't think this motion is debatable, i.e. it is like extremely hard to construct arguments against this motion except for derogatory "arguments"
Where in the last (or last two) Motion about electronic security it could be (at least) argued that by decreasing electronic security it allows for more secure environment cause police can use them to get more evidence, etc
Nevertheless I voted for Aff. Good job!

It's certainly possible to construct arguments against bits of the proposal, I could probably do it if I wanted to, and they'd make a lot of sense. I won't though because I support it.

[Otaku Stratus]

Voted against purely based on the inane and poorly worded "people with disabilities" instead of 'disabled people' or hell just 'supporting the disabled'

[CoraSpia]

Voted against purely based on the inane and poorly worded "people with disabilities" instead of 'disabled people' or hell just 'supporting the disabled'

'People with disabilities' is accepted international language at the moment, the thinking being that the person should be put before the disability.

[Kharon]

The first clause of this proposal, “Defines “people with disabilities” to be those that have a physical or mental impairment which, within their own, their guardian’s, or their doctor’s jurisdiction, has a detrimental or consequential effect on their capabilities to execute day-to-day activities;” is a bit off in my opinion.

I believe that a person with disabilities can not, under rule of law, state themselves as such, as many people have misconceptions and misunderstandings of what a mental illness is, as well as what most physical disabilities are, and as such, I believe that only a legal guardian or state-approved doctor is able to say that oneself is a “person with disabilities.”

[Free Las Pinas]

Voted against purely based on the inane and poorly worded "people with disabilities" instead of 'disabled people' or hell just 'supporting the disabled'

'People with disabilities' is accepted international language at the moment, the thinking being that the person should be put before the disability.

OOC: I agree with this reply - emphasize the individual, not the disability. My brother, for instance, has ASD, and is referred to as a "person with disability" rather than "disabled person", because the latter gives an impression of objectification. In addition to this, I also avoided using "differently-abled", which gives the impression that disability = weird, and that we can't comfortably/honestly talk about it. So, no, I do not feel it is inane or poorly worded, when that's how people refer to my brother, as well as his schoolmates, especially when the exact disability is unknown.

If Texkentuck were of this WA the nation would support this Proposal.


General William Walt VonVorkinKophfburg- General of The Texkentuck Committee for State Security.
Ambassador

Your support, despite not being able to vote, is appreciated.

Just wanted to chip in my two cents,
I don't think this motion is debatable, i.e. it is like extremely hard to construct arguments against this motion except for derogatory "arguments"
Where in the last (or last two) Motion about electronic security it could be (at least) argued that by decreasing electronic security it allows for more secure environment cause police can use them to get more evidence, etc
Nevertheless I voted for Aff. Good job!

Thank you.

The North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs supports this proposal, and our delegate will be voting accordingly. For further information on our stance, please see our IFV dispatch here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1509003

OOC: Reiterating my love for tnp

I'll be sure to get to the other questions a little later. I'm currently eating, but I couldn't help myself to not reply to that first one.

[Philimbesi]

After completing my rehab... er... court ordered two year vacation I am pleased to return to this Assembly and cast my vote for this resolution.

A case of the USP's finest Whiskey has been sent to its author... as apparently, in my absence my office has gone back to it's original use as a broom closet, and I have no where to store it.

Nigel S. Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA

[CoraSpia]

The first clause of this proposal, “Defines “people with disabilities” to be those that have a physical or mental impairment which, within their own, their guardian’s, or their doctor’s jurisdiction, has a detrimental or consequential effect on their capabilities to execute day-to-day activities;” is a bit off in my opinion.

I believe that a person with disabilities can not, under rule of law, state themselves as such, as many people have misconceptions and misunderstandings of what a mental illness is, as well as what most physical disabilities are, and as such, I believe that only a legal guardian or state-approved doctor is able to say that oneself is a “person with disabilities.”

"I'm unsure as to what you mean, ambassador. Are you suggesting that people with disabilities generally don't know that they have a disability, and need a second opinion? This makes...very little sense."

[Kharon]

The first clause of this proposal, “Defines “people with disabilities” to be those that have a physical or mental impairment which, within their own, their guardian’s, or their doctor’s jurisdiction, has a detrimental or consequential effect on their capabilities to execute day-to-day activities;” is a bit off in my opinion.

I believe that a person with disabilities can not, under rule of law, state themselves as such, as many people have misconceptions and misunderstandings of what a mental illness is, as well as what most physical disabilities are, and as such, I believe that only a legal guardian or state-approved doctor is able to say that oneself is a “person with disabilities.”

"I'm unsure as to what you mean, ambassador. Are you suggesting that people with disabilities generally don't know that they have a disability, and need a second opinion? This makes...very little sense."

That is not what I was attempting to say, sorry for misleading you. What I meant to say is that, while people can understand that they have a disability, many people don’t understand what most disabilities are, such as the misunderstanding that Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is just keeping things neat. While I believe that people are fine to do a self-diagnosis if it is a PHYSICAL disability, but I do not believe it will make a healthy economy if people are self-diagnosing mental disabilities, based on the current understand of them worldwide. I DO believe, however, that if mental awareness is improved, and people understand truly what the more common mental disabilities are, then a self-diagnosis may be more likely to happen and the diagnosed more aware of what they are diagnosing themselves with actually is.

[San Finn]

[*]Reaffirms the right to not be discriminated on the grounds of disability.

Uh, no please not. Reasonable discrimination on the grounds of disability is fine.

Excuse me, disability is an involuntary trait, similarly to race. "Reasonable discrimination" does not exist because all forms of discrimination against disabled people are unreasonable.

[The name how long can I make a nation na]

"Might I suggest a new sub-clause to clause 2?
(D) Refrain from the detainment, whether in medical facilities or otherwise, of people with disabilities excluding the legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others."

[Shamian]

(OOC)
I'm sorry, but there is no way I can support this, based on IRL experience/observations of later stage dementia patient care (vascular dementia in this case, but the prognosis is the same for most forms of the disease).

As written, and as another party had already highlighted, Part 2d of this proposal would make it unlawful to detain someone solely for their own protection, in circumstances where they are a danger to only themselves rather than a danger to others.

This is a problem, as most advanced dementia patients are not a danger to others, but often are to themselves; due to their short term memory issues and mental faculty degradation, they often display an inability to remember to feed themselves or look after themselves properly - despite often protesting otherwise.

As a result, this proposal actually makes it illegal to provide the necessary care for those with advanced dementia; as the disease progresses, it gets to the point where care in the community is no longer possible - at which point care generally involves involuntary residence in a specialised hospice facility.

Thankfully NS isn't real life, as if it were then I'm afraid that this proposal would endanger the wellbeing of a proportion of those it claims to support, as removal of this care framework would result in unnecessary deaths.

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this resolution. During internal voting, 14 regions voted in favour of the resolution, no region voted against, and no region abstained.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1509785

[CoraSpia]

(OOC)
I'm sorry, but there is no way I can support this, based on IRL experience/observations of later stage dementia patient care (vascular dementia in this case, but the prognosis is the same for most forms of the disease).

As written, and as another party had already highlighted, Part 2d of this proposal would make it unlawful to detain someone solely for their own protection, in circumstances where they are a danger to only themselves rather than a danger to others.

This is a problem, as most advanced dementia patients are not a danger to others, but often are to themselves; due to their short term memory issues and mental faculty degradation, they often display an inability to remember to feed themselves or look after themselves properly - despite often protesting otherwise.

As a result, this proposal actually makes it illegal to provide the necessary care for those with advanced dementia; as the disease progresses, it gets to the point where care in the community is no longer possible - at which point care generally involves involuntary residence in a specialised hospice facility.

Thankfully NS isn't real life, as if it were then I'm afraid that this proposal would endanger the wellbeing of a proportion of those it claims to support, as removal of this care framework would result in unnecessary deaths.

"Unfortunately Ambassador, these patients don't want you to provide them with this 'care.' That's why it has to be involuntary, after all."

[Old Hope]

(OOC)
I'm sorry, but there is no way I can support this, based on IRL experience/observations of later stage dementia patient care (vascular dementia in this case, but the prognosis is the same for most forms of the disease).

As written, and as another party had already highlighted, Part 2d of this proposal would make it unlawful to detain someone solely for their own protection, in circumstances where they are a danger to only themselves rather than a danger to others.

This is a problem, as most advanced dementia patients are not a danger to others, but often are to themselves; due to their short term memory issues and mental faculty degradation, they often display an inability to remember to feed themselves or look after themselves properly - despite often protesting otherwise.

As a result, this proposal actually makes it illegal to provide the necessary care for those with advanced dementia; as the disease progresses, it gets to the point where care in the community is no longer possible - at which point care generally involves involuntary residence in a specialised hospice facility.

Thankfully NS isn't real life, as if it were then I'm afraid that this proposal would endanger the wellbeing of a proportion of those it claims to support, as removal of this care framework would result in unnecessary deaths.

"Unfortunately Ambassador, these patients don't want you to provide them with this 'care.' That's why it has to be involuntary, after all."

"If they could understand the implications, most would not want to suffer the cruel conditions resulting out of a lack of care, ambassador. Unfortunately, not being able to make sound decisions due to a lack of recent long-term memories is part of the disease."

[CoraSpia]

"Unfortunately Ambassador, these patients don't want you to provide them with this 'care.' That's why it has to be involuntary, after all."

"If they could understand the implications, most would not want to suffer the cruel conditions resulting out of a lack of care, ambassador. Unfortunately, not being able to make sound decisions due to a lack of recent long-term memories is part of the disease."

"The Havenic government recognises only one reason in which it is acceptable for care to be provided without the patients informed consent, namely in the situation that the patient is incapable of giving consent due to unconsciousness and the care is being provided in an emergency situation. In all other situations, informed consent is required.
When we suggested that the proposer of this resolution include tthis clause, we only included allowing for consent in situations in which the patient is a danger to others in order to sweeten the deal for those members who are less dedicated to this than ourselves. We would have preferred not to have been forced to do this."