[DRAFT] Responsibility to Treat

[Quebecshire]

Hi all! Finally inspired to work on this by the current vote and Syberis and I's thoughts on it, we put together this draft. We had been considering making a resolution on this issue for a while.

First General Assembly draft we've worked on, feel free to butcher it here, all advice welcome!

---

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of General Assembly Resolution 499, which enshrines into law that members states must finance reproductive healthcare, such as pregnancy termination, otherwise known as “abortion”,

Further defines abortion as a form of reproductive healthcare,

Concerned that misinformation and overt or subtle societal pressure often prevents patients from seeking healthcare that runs contradictory to local customs and traditions,

Believing that all patients of major age deserve the medical treatment they seek, particularly in regards to reproductive healthcare,

Cognizant that the same societal mores which affect access to abortion also pose a detrimental impact on other forms of healthcare,

Hereby:

1. Declares that all medical practitioners may not decline to provide healthcare to any patient for exclusively morality-related reasons and
   
2. Prohibits medical professionals from attempting to persuade patients against any form of reproductive healthcare which they have requested, outside of genuine patient health or well-being concerns.

Co-authored by Syberis.

[Quebecshire]

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of General Assembly Resolution 499, which enshrines into law that members states must finance reproductive healthcare, such as pregnancy termination, otherwise known as “abortion”,

Further defines abortion as a form of reproductive healthcare,

Concerned that misinformation and overt or subtle societal pressure often prevents patients from seeking healthcare that runs contradictory to local customs and traditions,

Believing that all patients of major age deserve the medical treatment they seek, particularly in regards to reproductive healthcare,

Declares that all medical practitioners may not decline to provide reproductive healthcare to any patient for exclusively morality-related reasons,

Prohibits medical professionals from attempting to persuade patients against any form of healthcare which they have requested, outside of genuine patient health or well-being concerns,

Co-authored by Syberis.

[Cappedore]

Seems fine to me, not sure if this has been done before

[Greater Cesnica]

"Well, Ambassador, this is certainly an interesting draft. May I suggest expanding the scope to include all forms of healthcare? Also, a reorganization is in order to separate the pre-ambulatory clauses and active clauses. Actually, here..."

Ambassador McCooley types the following on his laptop:

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of General Assembly Resolution 499, which enshrines into law that members states must finance reproductive healthcare, such as pregnancy termination, otherwise known as “abortion”,

Further defines abortion as a form of reproductive healthcare,

Concerned that misinformation and overt or subtle societal pressure often prevents patients from seeking healthcare that runs contradictory to local customs and traditions,

Believing that all patients of major age deserve the medical treatment they seek, particularly in regards to reproductive healthcare,

Cognizant that the same societal mores which affect access to abortion also pose a detrimental impact on other forms of healthcare,

Hereby:

1. Declares that all medical practitioners may not decline to provide healthcare to any patient for exclusively morality-related reasons and
   
2. Prohibits medical professionals from attempting to persuade patients against any form of healthcare which they have requested, outside of genuine patient health or well-being concerns.

Co-authored by Syberis.

"I have sent my re-write to your email address. I hope you find it useful."

[Quebecshire]

"Well, Ambassador, this is certainly an interesting draft. May I suggest expanding the scope to include all forms of healthcare? Also, a reorganization is in order to separate the pre-ambulatory clauses and active clauses. Actually, here..."

Ambassador McCooley types the following on his laptop:

"I have sent my re-write to your email address. I hope you find it useful."

OOC: Thanks, I've updated the OP for the reorganization. I'll talk to Syb about expanding it, though we want to be sure that it explicitly covers abortion regardless.

[Syberis]

"Well, Ambassador, this is certainly an interesting draft. May I suggest expanding the scope to include all forms of healthcare? Also, a reorganization is in order to separate the pre-ambulatory clauses and active clauses. Actually, here..."

Ambassador McCooley types the following on his laptop:

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of General Assembly Resolution 499, which enshrines into law that members states must finance reproductive healthcare, such as pregnancy termination, otherwise known as “abortion”,

Further defines abortion as a form of reproductive healthcare,

Concerned that misinformation and overt or subtle societal pressure often prevents patients from seeking healthcare that runs contradictory to local customs and traditions,

Believing that all patients of major age deserve the medical treatment they seek, particularly in regards to reproductive healthcare,

Cognizant that the same societal mores which affect access to abortion also pose a detrimental impact on other forms of healthcare,

Hereby:

1. Declares that all medical practitioners may not decline to provide healthcare to any patient for exclusively morality-related reasons and
   
2. Prohibits medical professionals from attempting to persuade patients against any form of healthcare which they have requested, outside of genuine patient health or well-being concerns.

Co-authored by Syberis.

"I have sent my re-write to your email address. I hope you find it useful."

"Expanding it to include all forms of healthcare and many elective cosmetic procedures was something that we had been considering, though it's always good to hear agreement from an established author. There was some concern in potential response if we rendered it too broad"

[Separatist Peoples]

"So if a patient walks into a surgeons office to ask for amputation of a healthy limb, a doctor may not refuse out of ethical objection against causing unnecessary harm?"

[Quebecshire]

"So if a patient walks into a surgeons office to ask for amputation of a healthy limb, a doctor may not refuse out of ethical objection against causing unnecessary harm?"

"The resolution does not allow that, per the second operative clause. That would be an issue of wellbeing and health, not simply ethics."

[Separatist Peoples]

"So if a patient walks into a surgeons office to ask for amputation of a healthy limb, a doctor may not refuse out of ethical objection against causing unnecessary harm?"

"The resolution does not allow that, per the second operative clause. That would be an issue of wellbeing and health, not simply ethics."

"How exactly would a doctor be unable to twist an abortion to meet that criteria, then, ambassador? For that matter, how would any elective plastic surgery not fall under the same concerns for wellbeing and health? A nose job certainly is not medically necessary and has an impact on wellbeing and health."

[Quebecshire]

"The resolution does not allow that, per the second operative clause. That would be an issue of wellbeing and health, not simply ethics."

"How exactly would a doctor be unable to twist an abortion to meet that criteria, then, ambassador? For that matter, how would any elective plastic surgery not fall under the same concerns for wellbeing and health? A nose job certainly is not medically necessary and has an impact on wellbeing and health."

"There is a substantial difference between refusing a procedure because there is evidence to suggest it could harm or kill the patient and refusing service on the grounds of morality. Additionally, other doctors in the facility would be able to easier assess the nature of it on a wellbeing level, which is more objective. Morality, on the other hand, is a personal judgement. Though if the honourable ambassador has any suggestions to better address this concern, we are open to hearing them for possible edits."

[Separatist Peoples]

"How exactly would a doctor be unable to twist an abortion to meet that criteria, then, ambassador? For that matter, how would any elective plastic surgery not fall under the same concerns for wellbeing and health? A nose job certainly is not medically necessary and has an impact on wellbeing and health."

"There is a substantial difference between refusing a procedure because there is evidence to suggest it could harm or kill the patient and refusing service on the grounds of morality. Additionally, other doctors in the facility would be able to easier assess the nature of it on a wellbeing level, which is more objective. Morality, on the other hand, is a personal judgement. Though if the honourable ambassador has any suggestions to better address this concern, we are open to hearing them for possible edits."

"I'm not sure that the difference is so clear when plastic surgery is otherwise safe. Frankly, this seems like the worst possible solution to conscientious objection. If there are other physicians capable of providing the service, it seems that the best approach is facilitating that accommodation so the patient receives maximally beneficial treatment with as little interruption as possible. Not because the doctor merits protection for inane beliefs, but because the patient faces reduced risk of substandard care. In much the same way that volunteers make better soldiers than conscripts, professionals work better when they aren't forced into doing their job on pain of prosecution."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Against! Why is it always the man's responsibility to treat his date to a free meal? Have we not banished this ancient, sexist trope to the dustbin of history? How in the name of all the gods do you even propose to enforce such a...." Leo trails off as one of the interns whispers in his ear. He then looks down and actually reads the draft proposal.

"Ah. I see. Well, ambassador, I'll be honest - I'm not sure the WA is competent to legislate in this area. You'd need a full treatise on ethics and an entire set of instructions as to what medical need qualifies as which ethical problem. This is why we opposed the resolution currently at vote, and it is one of several reasons we supported the repeal of Resolution #128. While the rights of medical patients are fair game for World Assembly legislation, this kind of fuzzy gray area stuff as regards doctors is a lot harder to turn into even mediocre coherent law, let alone good law. I bid you luck, ambassador, but what is here so far is not enough to make a law out of."

I don't want to discourage you from writing here, because this is honestly a fairly good draft. But I don't imagine it passing, for the reasons Sep points out In Character above. I might not even posit this as the jurisdiction of national law; professional ethics generally fall under the purview of their respective professional associations and licensing boards (if any). I don't see what a supranational board of international law could do here that wouldn't be viciously ham-handed in light of the character limit we have to work with. I'm willing to be proven wrong - heck, maybe even hoping. But I'm afraid this bare-bones requirement isn't subtle enough to work as currently written.

[Great Algerstonia]

"Against, against, AGAINST. This is yet another attack by the damned liberals on Algerstonen values and beliefs. We refuse to let our heroic doctors in the line of duty do something that they morally oppose. Some of them already deal with fucking corpses every day, why should we make them do things they don't want? Algerstonia will fight against this attack on our medical heroes and our values of choice and we will make sure this proposal fails!"

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, before smoking a cigar.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Against, against, AGAINST. This is yet another attack by the damned liberals on Algerstonen values and beliefs. We refuse to let our heroic doctors in the line of duty do something that they morally oppose. Some of them already deal with fucking corpses every day, why should we make them do things they don't want? Algerstonia will fight against this attack on our medical heroes and our values of choice and we will make sure this proposal fails!"

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, before smoking a cigar.

"Ambassador, I wasn't aware you had a majority of votes in your back pocket. Not even the honorable Ambassador Mortimer of the Imperium Anglorum can say that."

[The Python]

Fully opposed to this (wow I'm agreeing with GA). It's immoral to force moral objectors to do abortions, and would also be problematic in terms of less people willing to become doctors.

[Great Algerstonia]

"Against, against, AGAINST. This is yet another attack by the damned liberals on Algerstonen values and beliefs. We refuse to let our heroic doctors in the line of duty do something that they morally oppose. Some of them already deal with fucking corpses every day, why should we make them do things they don't want? Algerstonia will fight against this attack on our medical heroes and our values of choice and we will make sure this proposal fails!"

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, before smoking a cigar.

"Ambassador, I wasn't aware you had a majority of votes in your back pocket. Not even the honorable Ambassador Mortimer of the Imperium Anglorum can say that."

The Admiral-Ambassador squints. "I have my methods."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, I wasn't aware you had a majority of votes in your back pocket. Not even the honorable Ambassador Mortimer of the Imperium Anglorum can say that."

The Admiral-Ambassador squints. "I have my methods."

"No, you don't."

[Great Algerstonia]

The Admiral-Ambassador squints. "I have my methods."

"No, you don't."

"Fine, you called my bluff, you- anyways, we oppose this proposal, blah blah blah, I hate my job."

[Texkentuck]

This proposal is extreme...It politically motivated and it's no place for the health care industry of nations. This proposal ignores the human rights given to an individual after the fact it's clearly a human entity. To make this proposal less extreme it would be best to make it in which human rights are defended in which it's illegal for most abortions but when the childs life is in jeopardy or the the women could lose her uterus it's left up to the women to decide. Also it fails to take into account that the practice of abortion itself allows for parts to be sold after abortion which takes away the humanity of the child. The rights should be respected on all fronts. If this proposal goes through It's a human rights atrocity.

Proposal should be

A child has the right to be born after conception

An abortion is allowed if the doctor states that the abortion is necessary to save a women.

An abortion is allowed if the women's uterus is in jeapardy.

Also doctors in womens health should be permitted to do an abortion because they went to medical school to do everything in saving a life and not taking a life.

This would be a better proposal that is concerned with the rights of all.

If the proposal is pushed forward it ignores completely the oppinions of the minority nations on this WA. The WA should be looking after the best interest of each nation. A nation that becomes pro-choice will have no room to talk human rights in the oppinion of Texkentuck because the rights of the child and doctor are ignored. Also the women isn't advised to do the best decision which is to give life when her own body isn't in jeapardy. Also huge side affects of abortion will not be promoted such as rregular bleeding or spotting for the first 2 weeks. Such as ramping for the first 2 weeks. Some women may have cramping (like menstrual cramps) for as long as 6 weeks. This is because the body expeariance something not normal. If it hurts it probably isn't good especially if it's self inflicted also fever... It's an unnatural strain on the body. Doctors should advise against it because it would be better to let the body do what is natural which is child birth.... Most of all it ends a life or future of someone with rights under the law and that's just as bad because it takes away the rights of someone who more and likely someone who would want to live. The rights of someone to be are completely ignored. Also the child fights against the foreign abject in a struggle to live. The child itself feels pain. Human Rights is in jeopardy 100%. Just the title responsibility to treat sounds like something straight from a fascist regime. Because of proposals as this is the reason why the majority isn't a member of the WA.

ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE HIGHLIGHTED TO MAKE THE BEST PROPOSAL THAT IS MOST FAIR. LETS NOT BE SIMPLE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND TAKE THE BEST APPROACH IN WHICH THE INNOCENT IS BORN THE DOCTORS RIGHTS AREN'T VIOLATED AND THE WOMEN OWN LIFE IS STILL RESPECTED. IN THE PROPOSAL PUT FORWARD HERE WHICH I REFUTE BY STATING A DOCTOR CAN'T ADVISE AGAINST ABORTION FAILS TO TAKE IN ACCOUNT THAT THE AFFECTS ARE LIFE LONG MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY FOR SOME TIME. ALSO RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN WITH OUT A VOICE ARE RESPECTED....

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced. Our nation stands with science... Also this proposal took away the rights of a doctor to make a choice not to do an abortion. My nation understand there is a clear difference between womens health and sheer practice of abortion. If the womens uterus is in jeopardy then it should be left up to the women. If we made a pro-life proposal that ignores the health of the women completely then that would be a proposal ruled by religion. We need proposals that defend the life of a child but also makes sure the women can have an abortion if the womens life is truly in jeopardy. Abortion is more dangerous of a procedure than child birth. Child birth is natural and abortion is not.

In Texkentuck most abortions are ilegal but if a women is notified by doctors that the child birth is dangerous or herself/ baby/uterus is in jeopardy during birth then the abortion would be allowed. If our nations laws went completely off religion the women would be forced to have a child. But even in religion just the act of forcing a women to make a sacrifice of herself or uterus takes away her basic religious decision to choose to sacrifice herself or her uterus for the purpose of giving life to her child.

Even God the Father let Jesus himself to make the decision to die for the sins of man when Christ didn't have too... In that case was virtuous. Because of that lesson it should be left up to the women when her life is in Jeopardy like Christs. But when it's just about sheer termination of a pregnancy it's more than just one women's life or health but the individual child with the basic gift of life which Texkentucks' constitution defends. It's virtuous whenever a women chooses to sacrifice herself for her child but the moment the state takes that away the virtue is lost and religious freedom is in jeapardy. But also if sheer abortions are allowed the Childs basic given rights are now also too in Jeopardy as well as God given right. Both must be defended....,Also if a women chooses to not sacrifice herself or her uterus for a child there is a reason which our governments and this WA has no right to judge because God's will may be for her to give birth to the next child or to be alive for her family sake...A household without a mother because of such a sacrifice may lead to societies destruction. God doesn't want for people to be stupid. There is a reason we have a mind, mouth, and eyes. This proposal is simply about the human rights of a doctor. No doctor should be forced to do an abortion because it's intruding on the rights of a doctor. Technically the women can find another doctors because of passed proposals of this WA. Technically this WA isn't concerned about the rights of individuals and values the right of the mother over everyones rights which isn't justice nor did it improve human rights. The WA nations who voted against keeping this proposal is illogical and simple minded. For that this WA has lowered itself on the civil rights spectrum in the oppinion of our nation Texkentuck.....

Simply this WA ignores the science that says it's a child and is totally rejecting the rights of a doctor. It's a human rights atrocity...Also in all civil rights cases there is always an oppressor with more rights than others...Technically and as horrible it sounds a women can do the abortion herself and in that case she's the opressor and the child is more and likely the victim.... As I've stated there are contraceptives that can be taken to terminate a pregnancy that is not late term. We aren't talking about tissue. Also if this proposal stays in place the doctors rights are respected and do to the pro-choice proposal in place by this WA the women can have a sheer abortion for just any reason. Which Texkentuck is against... This WA by removing a proposal to defend rights is a human rights atrocity and an attack on a doctors convictions of a religious, agnostic, athiest doctor that has some value to not terminate a life because science says it's a human...

Hope that this WA actually understands it's flaw and puts the proposal back in place.... Or just get rid of pro-choice proposal and makes one that defends the rights of all and goes off defending life stronger and respecting rights of each party to the best of it's ability....

From the Parliament of Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation...

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck

[Texkentuck]

"Against, against, AGAINST. This is yet another attack by the damned liberals on Algerstonen values and beliefs. We refuse to let our heroic doctors in the line of duty do something that they morally oppose. Some of them already deal with fucking corpses every day, why should we make them do things they don't want? Algerstonia will fight against this attack on our medical heroes and our values of choice and we will make sure this proposal fails!"

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, before smoking a cigar.

I agree with you Admiral....

I may write a proposal that is less pro-abort and more pro-life that looks after all parties to the best of it's ability.

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

President Bram W. Schirkophf

[Quebecshire]

I agree with you Admiral....

I may write a proposal that is less pro-abort and more pro-life that looks after all parties to the best of it's ability.

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

President Bram W. Schirkophf

I would encourage you to look at prior World Assembly laws. Even if I don't move forward with my proposal, the current laws on the books still require member states to legalize and support the right to an abortion within their jurisdictions.

[Sincluda]

snip

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "I do not understand your disregard for prior Assembly legislation and methods of restating, word for word, one great monologue that simply drives others further from agreement (if they choose to listen to it again, or at all, that is)."

"Anyhow, this resolution is still in its early stages. One thing to take into consideration would be the ability of the doctor, as some doctors may decline treatment for a lack of self-confidence in their ability to treat. While this could be interpreted already in the first clause, I would hope to see some clarification on the matter. It may be difficult to avoid the loophole, however, in which a doctor claims to be unable to treat a patient while really just circumventing the legislation. Hmmm..."

[Texkentuck]

snip

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "I do not understand your disregard for prior Assembly legislation and methods of restating, word for word, one great monologue that simply drives others further from agreement (if they choose to listen to it again, or at all, that is)."

"Anyhow, this resolution is still in its early stages. One thing to take into consideration would be the ability of the doctor, as some doctors may decline treatment for a lack of self-confidence in their ability to treat. While this could be interpreted already in the first clause, I would hope to see some clarification on the matter. It may be difficult to avoid the loophole, however, in which a doctor claims to be unable to treat a patient while really just circumventing the legislation. Hmmm..."

I understand and sorry your nation doesn't understand. Until this WA understands don't think more nations will join....Any how we rest our case and we do not intend to send anymore ambassadors to the WA for some time. The WA isn't very diplomatic....

President Schirkophf

[Sincluda]

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "I do not understand your disregard for prior Assembly legislation and methods of restating, word for word, one great monologue that simply drives others further from agreement (if they choose to listen to it again, or at all, that is)."

"Anyhow, this resolution is still in its early stages. One thing to take into consideration would be the ability of the doctor, as some doctors may decline treatment for a lack of self-confidence in their ability to treat. While this could be interpreted already in the first clause, I would hope to see some clarification on the matter. It may be difficult to avoid the loophole, however, in which a doctor claims to be unable to treat a patient while really just circumventing the legislation. Hmmm..."

I understand and sorry your nation doesn't understand. Until this WA understands don't think more nations will join....Any how we rest our case and we do not intend to send anymore ambassadors to the WA for some time. The WA isn't very diplomatic....

President Schirkophf

"I am positive that WA membership is down because the founding of new nations is down, and that GAR#499 is not the reason behind it."

[Texkentuck]

I understand and sorry your nation doesn't understand. Until this WA understands don't think more nations will join....Any how we rest our case and we do not intend to send anymore ambassadors to the WA for some time. The WA isn't very diplomatic....

President Schirkophf

"I am positive that WA membership is down because the founding of new nations is down, and that GAR#499 is not the reason behind it."

Well duh.

Pres. Schirkophf
Texkentuck
U.C.C.R