NationStates

Health: Research

The World Assembly,

Believing that further action is necessary to ensure that appropriate actions are taken proactively to ensure knowledge and containment of epidemic outbreaks,

Recognising that, even with the provisions of GA 53 "Epidemic Response Act", many governments still will downplay epidemics due to fears of harms to trade or general reputational damage,

Concerned that possible government action against healthcare workers harms the ability of international organisations to monitor and be truthfully informed of new epidemics, and

Hoping to cut through cover-ups, dissembling, and obfuscation by nations generally while ensuring that healthcare workers conveying truthful information or opinion are not penalised, hereby enacts as follows:

1. Inspection requirements. When a report is received by the World Health Authority (WHA) of an outbreak of disease or of the emergence of a novel pathogen under section 2 infra, the WHA may dispatch inspectors to investigate and report publicly on the origins of, response to, and make recommendations on the outbreak.
   
   
   1. All member nations must permit the entrance and exit of WHA inspectors (hereinafter Inspectors) and fully cooperate with such requests for access or information which Inspectors may deliver to member nation authorities, subject to the following subsection.
      
      
   2. Inspectors’ request for access to sensitive areas or sensitive information may be rejected by the local jurisdiction. Such rejections shall be reviewed by the Independent Adjudicative Office, which may overrule such rejections if the likely harm of release is less than the likely harm to international public health interests.
      
      
   3. No member nation may otherwise bar the access of Inspectors to medical personnel. Nor may any member nation retaliate against the provision of information by medical personnel to Inspectors.
2. Reporting requirements. Any novel pathogen with suggestive evidence of person-to-person transmission must be reported to the WHA forthwith. Member nations must collect statistics on transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings and report such statistics to the WHA in a timely manner.
   
   
3. Opt-in inspection authority. WHA inspectors may undertake a section 1 investigation and report in a non-member nation with the approval thereof. If after granting approval, that nation fails to comply with section 1 access and retaliation requirements as if it were a member nation, at the instigation of the WA Solicitors Office, the Independent Adjudicative Office may declare appropriate sanctions to be enforced by member nations against the nation or those persons responsible in that nation for such non-compliance.
   
   
4. WA healthcare. WHA inspectors shall take all necessary precautions to prevent their transmission of any disease they are investigating. The General Fund shall pay for healthcare costs, or insurance therefor, of WA employees. Nations opting in under the previous section, which do not regularly remit assessments to the WA General Fund, must consent to levies against their nation for healthcare costs incurred by WA employees operating under the auspices of this resolution.

Original drafting Google Doc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XkN ... uUJLlUEuw/

"of an outbreak of disease or of the emergence of a novel pathogen under section 2 infra"

I would change this to include non-novel diseases, as there can be epidemics caused by diseases known to medical professionals.

Can No Rey wrote:"of an outbreak of disease or of the emergence of a novel pathogen under section 2 infra"

I would change this to include non-novel diseases, as there can be epidemics caused by diseases known to medical professionals.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Presumably, if a disease breaks out, it can be readily identified and therefore would not be a novel pathogen.

The Federation stands in support of this proposal.

"We support this proposal for multiple reasons. First, the more knowledge the international community has about an emerging pathogen, the better it and individual nations can prepare and respond. Second, tracing the manner in which such a pathogen spreads would help researchers predict where it may travel to, or where it may have already reached. And third, it encourages transparency and lifts the veil on the activities of those nations which generally keep these things hidden from the rest of the world, to the immeasurable detriment to the people affected."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Our thanks for your support.

Bump.

Unequivocally opposed until and unless the requirement that non-members be sanctioned for failure to comply with legislation that they are not generally bound by is removed (or at best changed to become a permission).

---

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Believing that further action is necessary to ensure that appropriate actions are taken proactively to ensure knowledge and containment of epidemic outbreaks,
Recognising that, even with the provisions of GA 53 ‘Epidemic Response Act’, many governments still will downplay epidemics due to fears of harms to trade or general reputational damage,

Concerned that possible government action against healthcare workers harms the ability of international organisations to monitor and be truthfully informed of new epidemics, and
Hoping to cut through cover-ups, dissembling, and obfuscation by nations generally while ensuring that healthcare workers conveying truthful information or opinion are not penalised, hereby enacts as follows:

Why are this preamble split into two rather than the customary n blocks (where n is the number of actual lines in one's preamble)?

Tinhampton wrote:Unequivocally opposed until and unless the requirement that non-members be sanctioned for failure to comply with legislation that they are not generally bound by is removed (or at best changed to become a permission).

No. If you consent to having an independent investigation, you cannot then cover it up without consequences.

OOC: At a quick glance this gives a committee things to do and tells member nations to submit paperwork to the committee. Isn't that textbook committee only violation?

Just asking why not first require the nations to do investigating and only involve WHA if either 1. the nation does not have the resources to spare (what with dealing with the epidemic), or 2. the epidemic is minor in the nation of origin and major internationally (so that the nation might have little need to know more, but other nations very much would like the information).

Also, "section 2 infra"? I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one to read "infra" as "infrastructure". If you mean below, write below (if you don't, then I don't know what it refers to). I know you like fancy wordings for no reason than them being fancy, but that one's just plain unnecessary. Doesn't even save character space.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: At a quick glance this gives a committee things to do and tells member nations to submit paperwork to the committee. Isn't that textbook committee only violation?

No... the standard has to do with a hypothetical proposal which requires nothing more than submitting paper work. Try again.

Araraukar wrote:Also, "section 2 infra"? I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one to read "infra" as "infrastructure".

Then you'd be wrong.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: At a quick glance this gives a committee things to do and tells member nations to submit paperwork to the committee. Isn't that textbook committee only violation?

No... the standard has to do with a hypothetical proposal which requires nothing more than submitting paper work. Try again.

OOC: "Can't bar access to WA gnomes" and "(must) collect statistics on transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings" do not make a Significant Strength, then, if you prefer that.

Araraukar wrote:Also, "section 2 infra"? I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one to read "infra" as "infrastructure".

Then you'd be wrong.

Ask 1000 people what they think "infra" refers to, no context given, and then if none say "infrastructure", you can say I'm wrong. But hey, if you want to write in loopholes for creative compliance, then that's fine by me.

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:No... the standard has to do with a hypothetical proposal which requires nothing more than submitting paper work. Try again.

OOC: "Can't bar access to WA gnomes" and "(must) collect statistics on transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings" do not make a Significant Strength, then, if you prefer that.

Then go and challenge the proposal on that basis. If you come back with a decision saying it's illegal, I'll fold. You know exactly how much I care for your brand of category rule obstructionism.

I intend to submit this soon.

I support the draft.

"The only question that this delegation has is who would make the initial report of a potential outbreak of a novel transmissible disease?

Additionally, would there be any ability for nation A to block an investigation if Nation B lodges the report saying it came from Nation A?"

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Health: Research? Healthcare?.

OOC: Having checked the definitions in the rules, I'm inclined to say 'Healthcare' rather than 'Research'... but of course other GenSec members might disagree. When you mention the WHA here, presumably you mean specifically its 'EPARC'?
It is arguably a bit on the weak side for a proposal that would have an 'Area of Effect' rather than 'Strength: Mild'.

Hulldom wrote:"The only question that this delegation has is who would make the initial report of a potential outbreak of a novel transmissible disease?

Additionally, would there be any ability for nation A to block an investigation if Nation B lodges the report saying it came from Nation A?"

Anyone could report the emergence of a novel pathogen with suggestive evidence of person-to-person transmission. It would be up to the WHA to determine the veracity of that report, and it then would have discretion whether to send investigators there.

Bears Armed wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Health: Research? Healthcare?.

OOC: Having checked the definitions in the rules, I'm inclined to say 'Healthcare' rather than 'Research'... but of course other GenSec members might disagree. When you mention the WHA here, presumably you mean specifically its 'EPARC'?

Why Healthcare?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: Having checked the definitions in the rules, I'm inclined to say 'Healthcare' rather than 'Research'... but of course other GenSec members might disagree. When you mention the WHA here, presumably you mean specifically its 'EPARC'?

Why Healthcare?

After this many weeks, you have to ask?
*<sighs>*
I don't now remember why I said that back then, maybe because the proposal seemed to be more about field inspections & questioning medical local personnel than about the more "academically"-based types of studies with which I subconsciously was associating the term 'research'... Looking at the matter again now, bearing in mind both the fact that epidemiology is a branch of medical research and the fact that that this proposal probably would place little direct burden on the members' healthcare systems, I concede that 'Research' might be the better of those two possible choices after all.
Actually, though, bearing in mind that the financial burden of these measures arguably would fall more on the WHA than on any particular member nation's medical services and that the WA is funded disproportionately by its wealthier members, you could even make a case for 'Health: International Aid'. That would be precedent-setting, rather than based on already-established precedent, but its underlying logic does seem sound enough to me...
We really need more of GenSec's members to discuss this question.

Bears Armed wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Why Healthcare?

After this many weeks, you have to ask?
*<sighs>*

Lol I too have things to do other than this game.

Bears Armed wrote:I don't now remember why I said that back then, maybe because the proposal seemed to be more about field inspections & questioning medical local personnel than about the more "academically"-based types of studies with which I subconsciously was associating the term 'research'... Looking at the matter again now, bearing in mind both the fact that epidemiology is a branch of medical research and the fact that that this proposal probably would place little direct burden on the members' healthcare systems, I concede that 'Research' might be the better of those two possible choices after all.

Actually, though, bearing in mind that the financial burden of these measures arguably would fall more on the WHA than on any particular member nation's medical services and that the WA is funded disproportionately by its wealthier members, you could even make a case for 'Health: International Aid'. That would be precedent-setting, rather than based on already-established precedent, but its underlying logic does seem sound enough to me...

We really need more of GenSec's members to discuss this question.

I'll consider your remarks well taken. My thoughts were in the order given, originally, that research would be the first choice. I hadn't thought about international aid: there isn't much in the proposal to aid nations insofar as ensure that disease is reported properly.

What happens if the inspector catches the disease/virus in the country they are inspecting. Are we responsible for their health and safety? If they are allowed to just waltz into hospitals and medical facilities without anyone's permission, its their problem if they catch anything.

The nation of Texkentuck will support this proposal and in the nation of Texkentuck we do have a lab that studies such viruses. Our government will hold ourselves responsible if such an outbreak gets lose on the population. Our facility is for the study of disease and to create vaccines that will help defeat viruses. Our nation stands strong against disease warfare....Any party responsible of a virus getting lose from our lab will be subject to the world court and face imprisonment by our nation. We would also like to see added to the proposal for if their is an outbreak nations will push for selective quarantine of all major cities and airports immediately shut down by all WA Nations.

Our nation is currently putting together disease chemical weapon suits sent out to each citizen in case of a crisis. Citizens are responsible for protecting themselves. A citizen who refuses the vaccine or to wear the suit are at a great risk when our government lets them know the danger. We have a Constitution in Texkentuck when it comes to liberties. Our nation will go to the extent of a selective quarantine of all places in which virus is reported.
The Texkentuck Government takes such matters vary serious......

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Republic Federation
U.C.C.R

The Hazar Amisnery wrote:What happens if the inspector catches the disease/virus in the country they are inspecting. Are we responsible for their health and safety? If they are allowed to just waltz into hospitals and medical facilities without anyone's permission, its their problem if they catch anything.

The inspector must stay in the nation and self quarantine for a duration.....
Inspectors must be in quarantine for some time anyway upon inspection.....
The WA would be definitely at fault if they let inspectors just wander from nation to nation spreading a major virus......
The WA must make sure no nation is allowed to make a joke of the health organization either by being guilty of not reporting a virus.....
The WA must hold themselves to a high standard if they expect nations to be at a high standards or the health organization is just a joke......

Texkentuck isn't a member of the WA but we like to stay active with opinion. Too many laws seem to overlap and our nation does best with out so many proposals that hinder us as a nation. If we were in the WA every city in Texkentuck would break out in protests....

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf

The Hazar Amisnery wrote:What happens if the inspector catches the disease/virus in the country they are inspecting. Are we responsible for their health and safety? If they are allowed to just waltz into hospitals and medical facilities without anyone's permission, its their problem if they catch anything.

I would imagine not, given that WA bureaucrats would almost certainly have their own health plans and have health and safety guidelines that they would follow. Would you like an explicit allocation of inspector costs to the General Fund?