[DRAFT] Promotion Of Better Mental Health Act

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Not to mention that it was submitted way too soon. The contradiction mentioned above wasn't addressed, and the proposal still needed polishing in my opinion. Don't rush with submitting a draft proposal, let it stew on the sub-forums for a few weeks if you care about the quality of your proposal.

[Tinhampton]

...I will be keeping it as a draft, until ev[eryone seems to be happy with the draft. Thanks!

no u

(please can GenSec/GAS discard the above proposal? thanks)

[Araraukar]

OOC: What the fuck are "rehab centers" in this context? Are you trying to mandate all mentally ill people, whether or not they pose any harm to anyone, are involuntarily shut in a mental asylum or what? There's a resolution banning that, and I'm fairly sure it hasn't been repealed. So more contradiction.

[Westarctic]

OOC: The point about GAR#540, 2d has not been addressed. This is illegal for contradiction.

Sorry for the confusion. The one at the top was an older version, I forgot to edit it with the final one. But dont worry, the one you are talking about has been fixed.

[Westarctic]

OOC: What the fuck are "rehab centers" in this context? Are you trying to mandate all mentally ill people, whether or not they pose any harm to anyone, are involuntarily shut in a mental asylum or what? There's a resolution banning that, and I'm fairly sure it hasn't been repealed. So more contradiction.

Yeah, I fixed it to where it says that people with mental disorders that pose a risk to society are required to attend rehab. sorry for the confusion

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'll pass. This was really only intended towards humans. Not animals. Besides, this isn't a role-play board.

Alright, I'll change it. But roleplay is pretty weird to me, if I'm being honest, and I'd hope you'd respect that by not doing that on my thread. Thanks

Leo steps over and snatches a loose piece of string off the Westarctic ambassador's lapel, and booms, "What thread? This thread? You'll find we all have our roles to play, sir, even if yours is as trifling as this unraveling cable, here," as he rubs the string between his fingers and lets the debris fall on the ambassador's desk. "Anyway, your imagination is as dim as your eyesight..." Leo glances around the debating chamber, drifting from the Bears' desk - sadly empty at the moment - to some of the more exotic delegations', but no one seems interested in speaking up. Finally, he mutters, "Where's Ambassador Southwoods when you need to scare some little fellow shitless?"

OOC: What the fuck are "rehab centers" in this context? Are you trying to mandate all mentally ill people, whether or not they pose any harm to anyone, are involuntarily shut in a mental asylum or what? There's a resolution banning that, and I'm fairly sure it hasn't been repealed. So more contradiction.

Yeah, I fixed it to where it says that people with mental disorders that pose a risk to society are required to attend rehab. sorry for the confusion

"Ambassador, 'fixed it' you have not. The existing legislation still requires commission of a crime, not just a determination that the patient poses a danger. Where those conditions aren't met, you may not require these persons to be away from their homes. Ambassador Wellesley already gave you a perfectly good suggestion as to what is needed here. You really ought to pay attention to the things people around you say. You'll do much better both here in the World Assembly, and generally in your life, sir."

[Tinhampton]

...I will be keeping it as a draft, until ev[eryone seems to be happy with the draft. Thanks!

no u

(please can GenSec/GAS discard the above proposal? thanks)

My consent to being listed as a co-author of Promotion of better mental health act remains withheld.

Showing time and time again that having bad mental health, and leaving it go untreated, can cause problems on both a personal and communal scale.

Recognizing the legitimacy of mental health patients and their problem's.

Hereby:

1. Defines mental health as the mental status of a sapient being, rehabilitation center as a center for treatment of a serious problem (in this case, for treating mental disorders), and mental disorder as a condition that arises in a person that causes impairment to an aspect/s of ones mental functioning, which can have the potential to lead to more serious things (such as bodily harm, self-hate, suicide, etc.).

2. Enacts new changes on a local level to the way that governments handle people with mental-disorders, including:

2.1. Regulating and ensuring that rehabilitation center operators run their facilities properly and efficiently by:

2.1.1. Having regular inspections done on rehabilitation centers by social service workers from the local government that the rehabilitation centers are located in for maintenance and security reasons, by overseeing and controlling any possible safety violations, mistreatment of patients, etc.

2.1.2 Ensuring that said rehabilitation centers can successfully rehabilitate a person with any mental-disorder that they take in, in an orderly and timely manner, while also being able to assume responsibility if they fail to do so, if not an extremely severe case. If so, the rehabilitation centers should consult with close family members of the specific patient in question about the best course of action for the patient. Whether or not they want the patient to be taken out, is their decision and their decision only. As long as the patient in question poses no threat to society, rehabilitation will not be necessary, but only encouraged by social service workers. This will be determined by a trained psychologist. If it is decided that the person is unfit and unable to function even with medication, therapy, and/or rehabilitation, they (with the families permission) will be held indefinitely until deemed fit to be released.

2.2. Starting early with spotting symptoms of mental-disorders by having schools (primary to high) make sure that school counselors are available and ready to be able to help any child that needs to talk about their problems. Doing this could help eliminate preventable mental-disorders in the future and guarantees that students would have someone to talk to.

2.3. Offering pharmaceutical companies incentives (such as monetary incentives from the WA nation in question) for providing newer, better, and safer medicines and treatments for these mental-disorders.

2.4. Ensuring that businesses provide mental-health services, such as coverage for therapy or counseling with their health benefits for their employees, to help cut down on the rising suicide rate attributed to work-related issues.

2.5. Requiring noted people with severe mental disorders that have committed a crime with a causing factor of it being their mental health and also posing significant risk to others to be sent to a psychological rehabilitation center for a certain period of time to ensure that the said citizen gets better, and can therefore go back to contributing to society, their own family (if applicable), and other important priorities of said citizen. If not severe, it would still be recommend by social service workers to see a psychologist or attend therapy. However, it would not be required.

Coauthored by Tinhampton

[Bananaistan]

no u

(please can GenSec/GAS discard the above proposal? thanks)

My consent to being listed as a co-author of Promotion of better mental health act remains withheld.

Showing time and time again that having bad mental health, and leaving it go untreated, can cause problems on both a personal and communal scale.

Recognizing the legitimacy of mental health patients and their problem's.

Hereby:

1. Defines mental health as the mental status of a sapient being, rehabilitation center as a center for treatment of a serious problem (in this case, for treating mental disorders), and mental disorder as a condition that arises in a person that causes impairment to an aspect/s of ones mental functioning, which can have the potential to lead to more serious things (such as bodily harm, self-hate, suicide, etc.).

2. Enacts new changes on a local level to the way that governments handle people with mental-disorders, including:

2.1. Regulating and ensuring that rehabilitation center operators run their facilities properly and efficiently by:

2.1.1. Having regular inspections done on rehabilitation centers by social service workers from the local government that the rehabilitation centers are located in for maintenance and security reasons, by overseeing and controlling any possible safety violations, mistreatment of patients, etc.

2.1.2 Ensuring that said rehabilitation centers can successfully rehabilitate a person with any mental-disorder that they take in, in an orderly and timely manner, while also being able to assume responsibility if they fail to do so, if not an extremely severe case. If so, the rehabilitation centers should consult with close family members of the specific patient in question about the best course of action for the patient. Whether or not they want the patient to be taken out, is their decision and their decision only. As long as the patient in question poses no threat to society, rehabilitation will not be necessary, but only encouraged by social service workers. This will be determined by a trained psychologist. If it is decided that the person is unfit and unable to function even with medication, therapy, and/or rehabilitation, they (with the families permission) will be held indefinitely until deemed fit to be released.

2.2. Starting early with spotting symptoms of mental-disorders by having schools (primary to high) make sure that school counselors are available and ready to be able to help any child that needs to talk about their problems. Doing this could help eliminate preventable mental-disorders in the future and guarantees that students would have someone to talk to.

2.3. Offering pharmaceutical companies incentives (such as monetary incentives from the WA nation in question) for providing newer, better, and safer medicines and treatments for these mental-disorders.

2.4. Ensuring that businesses provide mental-health services, such as coverage for therapy or counseling with their health benefits for their employees, to help cut down on the rising suicide rate attributed to work-related issues.

2.5. Requiring noted people with severe mental disorders that have committed a crime with a causing factor of it being their mental health and also posing significant risk to others to be sent to a psychological rehabilitation center for a certain period of time to ensure that the said citizen gets better, and can therefore go back to contributing to society, their own family (if applicable), and other important priorities of said citizen. If not severe, it would still be recommend by social service workers to see a psychologist or attend therapy. However, it would not be required.

Coauthored by Tinhampton

OOC: I've discarded it.

I still thing 2.5 is an issue regarding GAR#540. GAR#540 is very specific that detainment can only be in respect of "legitimate punishment of crimes and where it can be proven that the disabled person is a danger to others". 2.5 appears to be a direction to have all people with mental health issues where they might pose a threat to others to be locked up once they have committed any crime, no matter how trivial, and perhaps well beyond "legitimate punishment".

Perhaps much more drafting would be advisable before any further submissions.

[Westarctic]

By the way, I have updated the proposal to fit the standards set by WA Resolution GAR #540, and I took out the last bit giving Tinhampton credit for helping me, at his request. Any and all criticism is welcome, thank you all!

[Westarctic]

By the way, if anyone has anymore suggestions, criticisms, or others, please submit within a week!

[Jedinsto]

By the way, if anyone has anymore suggestions, criticisms, or others, please submit within 24 hours!

You should give people a lot more time than that to post, I for one haven't actually read it yet, I'll take a look later.

[Westarctic]

By the way, if anyone has anymore suggestions, criticisms, or others, please submit within 24 hours!

You should give people a lot more time than that to post, I for one haven't actually read it yet, I'll take a look later.

Ok, I set it to a week.

[Outer Sparta]

By the way, I have updated the proposal to fit the standards set by WA Resolution GAR #540, and I took out the last bit giving Tinhampton credit for helping me, at his request. Any and all criticism is welcome, thank you all!

For future reference, Tinhampton is not a guy. If you want to use a pronoun, use the females ones when describing her. Just a heads up since she's a WA forum regular.

[Westarctic]

By the way, I have updated the proposal to fit the standards set by WA Resolution GAR #540, and I took out the last bit giving Tinhampton credit for helping me, at his request. Any and all criticism is welcome, thank you all!

For future reference, Tinhampton is not a guy. If you want to use a pronoun, use the females ones when describing her. Just a heads up since she's a WA forum regular.

oh sorry, that was an accident. No assumptions were made, I just put that pronoun in by accident

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

By the way, I have updated the proposal to fit the standards set by WA Resolution GAR #540

"You have not done so, ambassador," said Iulia, in the tone she usually reserved for talking to young children. "Since this needs to be spelled out for you, your proposal draft still states:

If it is decided that the person is unfit and unable to function even with medication, therapy, and/or rehabilitation, they (with the families[sic] permission) will be held indefinitely until deemed fit to be released

This contradicts and forever will contradict GA540 which states:

Refrain from the detainment [...] 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;

Allow us to channel a bit of bluntness: REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO INDEFINITE DETENTION FROM YOUR PROPOSAL. Indefinite detention without a criminal conviction will forever contradict GA540 and there is no workaround possible to the conviction requirement, no matter who might wish otherwise. No crime, no detention. The inquiry stops there under GA540. Our delegation is unsure how many other ways you can be told this before it registers.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Or repeal GA 540.

[Westarctic]

By the way, I have updated the proposal to fit the standards set by WA Resolution GAR #540

"You have not done so, ambassador," said Iulia, in the tone she usually reserved for talking to young children. "Since this needs to be spelled out for you, your proposal draft still states:

If it is decided that the person is unfit and unable to function even with medication, therapy, and/or rehabilitation, they (with the families[sic] permission) will be held indefinitely until deemed fit to be released

This contradicts and forever will contradict GA540 which states:

Refrain from the detainment [...] 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;

Allow us to channel a bit of bluntness: REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO INDEFINITE DETENTION FROM YOUR PROPOSAL. Indefinite detention without a criminal conviction will forever contradict GA540 and there is no workaround possible to the conviction requirement, no matter who might wish otherwise. No crime, no detention. The inquiry stops there under GA540. Our delegation is unsure how many other ways you can be told this before it registers.

First off, this is OOC, second, I made a mistake, get over it, third, its just a game, no need to lose your shit over it, and fourth, your salty as hell my guy.

[Westarctic]

Or repeal GA 540.

Good idea

[Scalizagasti]

Recognizing the legitimacy of mental health patients and their problem's.

Problems

1. Defines [...] mental disorder as a condition that arises in a person that causes impairment to an aspect/s of ones mental functioning, which can have the potential to lead to more serious things (such as bodily harm, self-hate, suicide, etc.).

"Things" is too vague. A lot of things can be serious, but not all of them are seriously harmful like the examples you mentioned.

2. Enacts new changes on a local level to the way that governments handle people with mental-disorders, including:

How local? Will this change how municipal governments function?

2.1.1. Having regular inspections done on rehabilitation centers by social service workers from the local government that the rehabilitation centers are located in for maintenance and security reasons, by overseeing and controlling any possible safety violations, mistreatment of patients, etc.

This is a run-on sentence which makes its meaning a bit unclear. For example, are the regular inspections done for maintenance and security reasons, or are the rehabilitation centres located in a government for maintenance and security reasons?

2.1.2 Ensuring that said rehabilitation centers can successfully rehabilitate a person with any mental-disorder that they take in, in an orderly and timely manner, while also being able to assume responsibility if they fail to do so, if not an extremely severe case.

What about incurable mental disorders?

[Daarwyrth]

"You have not done so, ambassador," said Iulia, in the tone she usually reserved for talking to young children. "Since this needs to be spelled out for you, your proposal draft still states:



This contradicts and forever will contradict GA540 which states:


Allow us to channel a bit of bluntness: REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO INDEFINITE DETENTION FROM YOUR PROPOSAL. Indefinite detention without a criminal conviction will forever contradict GA540 and there is no workaround possible to the conviction requirement, no matter who might wish otherwise. No crime, no detention. The inquiry stops there under GA540. Our delegation is unsure how many other ways you can be told this before it registers.

First off, this is OOC, second, I made a mistake, get over it, third, its just a game, no need to lose your shit over it, and fourth, your salty as hell my guy.

OOC: I'd advise you to adopt a more humble stance. You're new, the person you're speaking to is experienced. It would be wise to take their advice to heart, instead of talking back to them. Also, as stated before, you can't stop others from roleplaying in here. Both WA forums are RP forums, and if you want to participate in this, you'll have to accept that people will be IC, regardless of what your personal opinion on roleplay is.

[Westarctic]

First off, this is OOC, second, I made a mistake, get over it, third, its just a game, no need to lose your shit over it, and fourth, your salty as hell my guy.

OOC: I'd advise you to adopt a more humble stance. You're new, the person you're speaking to is experienced. It would be wise to take their advice to heart, instead of talking back to them. Also, as stated before, you can't stop others from roleplaying in here. Both WA forums are RP forums, and if you want to participate in this, you'll have to accept that people will be IC, regardless of what your personal opinion on roleplay is.

Yeah, but know. I don't want to come across as rude, but they did insult me, so it only felt right to insult them back.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I'd advise you to adopt a more humble stance. You're new, the person you're speaking to is experienced. It would be wise to take their advice to heart, instead of talking back to them. Also, as stated before, you can't stop others from roleplaying in here. Both WA forums are RP forums, and if you want to participate in this, you'll have to accept that people will be IC, regardless of what your personal opinion on roleplay is.

Yeah, but know. I don't want to come across as rude, but they did insult me, so it only felt right to insult them back.

OOC: Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth doesn't gain anyone respectability, neither here or elsewhere. Besides, they spoke In-Character, not Out-of-Character.

[Jedinsto]

And to clarify, IC talk is not directed as a personal attack, stuff like this happens all the time. OOC talk means you are speaking directly to the player, and you mean what you say.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: I was, in fact speaking in character. If I speak out of character it will be both marked like this (since this is an IC forum) and will not use the royal we that my character does. Regardless, if that was your level for being insulted, good luck with the GA. Iulia is downright fluffy compared to some of the others.

IC:

"We see that the contradiction has been removed. At first glance, additional suggestions would be to separate the definitions used into separate clauses for clarity, though we suspect the definitions will need work as well. We might also suggest being more specific in the mandates as to what concrete actions member states are to take. The proposal currently reads as a laundry list of vague desires for action rather than concrete measures and expenditures to be taken and made."

[Westarctic]

This thread doesn't seem to be getting to much traction anymore, so I'm considering being finished with the thread, and getting ready to submit my FINAL draft, which, after much consideration and review, I have decided has nothing violating GAR #540. Any more ideas anyone?