[DISCARDED] Psychiatric Care Act

[Rhenna]

A good proposal, but very left wing

[Lokkemand]

I just thought of a solution to the perhaps incredulous non-consent cycle scenario I mentioned, actually. Whether its a state matter or, though it is too late, a resolution matter, perhaps consent can come qualified through the administering of a treatment in a mental health facility, considering that once it has occurred that the patient has equivalently signed their release at the end of that road. The only question remains if that person can refuse thereafter, but, if we consider it in such a manner, then maybe not.

Further, clause 5 could reckon, in an event where a person for some reason insists upon going to a mental health facility for treatment, being denied access could be advanced as even not being able to reach the MHF, which might suggest that even transportation should be provided if giving support necessitates it. Though it could be argued that the onus is somewhat on the person? Or to reasonable access? Either way, I do support the resolution altogether. These are probably just technicalities given their extraordinary implications.

With what I've read from OP that they're considering some other resolution on the criminally insane, maybe that resolves any topic on those convicted that has been brought up and which I touched on.

[American Rockies]

IRL: I have OCD and ADHD. I am well aware of the importance of such healthcare. With that said I am overwhelmingly against this. Not only is it redundant (as talked about earlier), it’s way too controlling. It is not the WA’s business to control ever area of the domestic affairs of every nation. Finally this resolution prohibits identifying transgenderism and homosexuality as a mental disorder. LET ME BE CLEAR that I do not know if transgenderism and homosexuality is a mental disorder, and if it is I don’t mean to diminish these people in any way. That said, the science regarding these individuals is incredibly young and in ten to twenty years time we may learn that transgenderism and homosexuality is a mental disorder or isn’t, I dunno. I will say that transgenders having a higher suicide rate than Jews in Nazi Germany isn’t a good sign. But again, this message isn’t to diminish the worth of members of the LGBTQ+ community, nor is it meant to bully them, and it’s certainly not meant to diminish the reality of mental health crisis we see today, only that this resolution assumes too much and is far too controlling.

[The Wasatch Mountains]

This piece of legislation is extreme to some nations, yet this legislation has an incredible impact on human rights in a positive way. We are a small nation but it is our hope that this legislation passes for the good of humanity. Even if you seem to be a conservative country just this once it's worth voting yes to the Psychiatric Care Act for the betterment of our world. - The The People's Republic of The Wasatch Mountains

[Terra dei Cittadini]

A good proposal, but very left wing

What does it matter if it's "left" or "right"? If you're so bothered by it, then log off and call it a day.
Arguing that a proposal is too "left-wing" or "right-wing" IS NOT helpful in ANY way, not for the author nor for the people who review it.
If anything, you're simply doing the community a disservice by clogging up the forums.

[Buddhists of Janra]

A good proposal, but very left wing

What does it matter if it's "left" or "right"? If you're so bothered by it, then log off and call it a day.
Arguing that a proposal is too "left-wing" or "right-wing" IS NOT helpful in ANY way, not for the author nor for the people who review it.
If anything, you're simply doing the community a disservice by clogging up the forums.

Agreed

[GermanEmpire of kaisereich]

This is a replacement for GA#140, which is currently in the process of being repealed has been repealed.

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the fundamental rights to treatment and care that people with mental illness possess, and the high quality of care necessary to treat these individuals,

And believing that these rights ought to be upheld by the World Assembly,

Enacts the following provisions into law:

1. Gender identity, sexual orientation, political alignment or religious beliefs in and of themselves shall not be considered mental illness, nor shall any individual possessing these qualities be diagnosed with a mental illness on the basis of these characteristics.
2. Individuals with mental illness may not be persecuted on the basis of them having said mental illness.
3. Individuals may not be involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility unless it is an absolute necessity for the health and safety of the patient and/or others.
4. When plausible and optimal for the patient's health, steps must be taken to treat a patient without having to admit them to a mental health facility.
5. Individuals with mental illness shall not be denied access to qualified and appropriate psychiatric care, and any care that they receive shall be free of abuse and exploitation.
6. Those with mental illness may refuse all care and treatment including but not limited to confinement to a mental health facility, unless they pose a direct threat to themselves or others.
7. The following rights are guaranteed to patients in mental health facilities, and shall be upheld in all member-states:
   
   1. Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.
   2. Uncensored and daily allowance of visitation, as long as;
      
      1. The visitor(s) are not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the patient or others,
      2. The patient being visited is not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the visitor(s) or others, and
      3. The patient and visitor(s) both freely consent to the visit.
   3. Visits may be monitored by appropriately equipped facility staff at the patient's request or their visitor's request.
   4. Patients must be released from the mental health facility as soon as it is safe to do so for the patient as well as society, and with the patient consenting. Proper psychiatric help will continue to be offered so long as the former patient still requests or requires.
   5. All feasible steps to ensure an enjoyable and pleasant atmosphere, including a diversity of activities for both leisure and personal enrichment for all patients, will be taken within all mental health facilities.
   6. Freedom of movement and lack of restraint except where freedom of movement must be limited to prevent individuals from injuring themselves or others, or to prevent them from leaving the mental health facility.
   7. Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses.
   8. The status of having a mental illness shall not be considered a crime.
8. Following a patient’s release, efforts must be made by member nations to assimilate the former patient back into society.
9. Patients are not permitted to be transferred outside of the jurisdiction of the World Assembly for the purposes of bypassing this resolution.

Co-author: Morover

The German Empire of Kaisereich, supports the proposal, we must protect the mental health of our populations, because whenever a person has a High mental health, he can be more productive to help more people, my vote is in favor.

[Bravrudnia]

The Commonwealth of Bravrudnia expresses concern with provisions allowing involuntary treatment. The provision establishing that LGBT status and political dissent are not mental illnesses are welcome by the Commonwealth of Bravrudnia. However, we feel like the risks of allowing involuntary treatment under any circumstances are too great.

The Commonwealth of Bravrudnia will comply with this legislation if passed. However, we will explore all of our options to ensure that people are not subject to unwanted psychiatric intervention due to behaving or thinking in ways that are unpopular.

[Bravrudnia]

The Commonwealth of Bravrudnia expresses concern with provisions allowing involuntary treatment. The provision establishing that LGBT status and political dissent are not mental illnesses are welcome by the Commonwealth of Bravrudnia. However, we feel like the risks of allowing involuntary treatment under any circumstances are too great.

The Commonwealth of Bravrudnia will comply with this legislation if passed. However, we will explore all of our options to ensure that people are not subject to unwanted psychiatric intervention due to behaving or thinking in ways that are unpopular.

To clarify our concerns. We do have policies dealing with psychiatric emergencies relating to psychosis, mania, suicidal behavior, hoarding, and the like, which allows for involuntary treatment in rare circumstances. If this law fails to pass, nations' already-existing mental health policies will not be affected.

However, we are concerned that things are labeled as mental illnesses because society disapproves of certain behaviors and ways of thinking. Our Dear Leader has been diagnosed with autism, and our Dear Leader likes being autistic and doesn't feel like it is a problem to be fixed. Similarly, concerns have been raised by the category of "personality disorders". While some personality disorders may be worth treating, other diagnoses seem to reflect a negative opinion of certain persons rather than any innate pathology.

Given these concerns about what counts and doesn't count as a "disorder" or "illness" + our already existing laws, we feel like this would create unnecessary complications to our mental health regime.

[Las Duendes]

Individuals may not be involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility unless it is an absolute necessity for the health and safety of the patient and/or others.

Stupid rule. Prohibits involuntary admission to restore trial fitness. Why?

[Kaprein]

(This is a question I'm asking out of character) Can a resolution override portions of previous resolutions? (As article 7a seems to indicate that it provides no exception for any rules on speech - e.g. defamation).

[Kenmoria]

(This is a question I'm asking out of character) Can a resolution override portions of previous resolutions? (As article 7a seems to indicate that it provides no exception for any rules on speech - e.g. defamation).

(OOC: No, a proposal cannot contradict a previous resolution. If a proposal contradicts a resolution, that proposal is illegal for the rule of contradiction. However, I don’t think that this proposal does so.)

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

(This is a question I'm asking out of character) Can a resolution override portions of previous resolutions? (As article 7a seems to indicate that it provides no exception for any rules on speech - e.g. defamation).

(OOC: No, a proposal cannot contradict a previous resolution. If a proposal contradicts a resolution, that proposal is illegal for the rule of contradiction. However, I don’t think that this proposal does so.)

I think Kaprein has a point.

How does this:

The following rights are guaranteed to patients in mental health facilities, and shall be upheld in all member-states:
Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.

Not conflict with this:

Permits member nations to enact reasonable restrictions on peaceful free expression in those cases where the expression constitutes:
defamation, as defined in section 1b,
blatant and explicit pornographic material,
an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness,
a threat to civilian or military health or safety,
perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings,
the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,
an infringement on private or intellectual property rights,
a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation,

A right to uncensored communication clearly conflicts with member nations' right to enact reasonable restrictions on, say, exchanging pornography with developmentally disabled mental health patients.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: No, a proposal cannot contradict a previous resolution. If a proposal contradicts a resolution, that proposal is illegal for the rule of contradiction. However, I don’t think that this proposal does so.)

I think Kaprein has a point.

How does this:

The following rights are guaranteed to patients in mental health facilities, and shall be upheld in all member-states:
Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.

Not conflict with this:

Permits member nations to enact reasonable restrictions on peaceful free expression in those cases where the expression constitutes:
defamation, as defined in section 1b,
blatant and explicit pornographic material,
an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness,
a threat to civilian or military health or safety,
perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings,
the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,
an infringement on private or intellectual property rights,
a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation,

A right to uncensored communication clearly conflicts with member nations' right to enact reasonable restrictions on, say, exchanging pornography with developmentally disabled mental health patients.

(OOC: Well, I must say that I think that Kaprein’s right. That seems to be quite a blatant contradiction.)

[Difinbelk]

Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses.

"So an often discriminated against group is explicitly excluded from these protections. That's just... That's just something else. Opposed."

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Mister duBois, if this is your idea of a replacement, it is certainly - if unfortunately - a very literal one in parts and a surprisingly different beast in all the wrong places, as I will shortly demonstrate through the use of... this table.

WHAT IT DOES	GA#140 "Institutional Psychiatry Act" Eduard Hier and Pascal S. Wager	Psychiatric Care Act James duBois and Darin Perise
Create an underclass of people with mental health conditions because of their criminal status	❌	✅

[Clause 5]
[*]Individuals with mental illness shall not be denied access to qualified and appropriate psychiatric care, and any care that they receive shall be free of abuse and exploitation. This presupposes that member states have the financial and logistical ability to provide all individual with qualified and appropriate psychiatric care.

“Overall, I find myself in support of this draft’s concept, but the execution at present is somewhat broad in its approach.”

I'm opposed for multiple reasons:

• I don't agree with revoking the rights of criminals, especially when that revocation is not at all related to a patient's crimes. That said, I'd like to go even further than Heidgaudr and Tinhampton did in their condemnations: Clause 7g says that the rights enumerated in clause 7 (and clause 7 only, more on that later) are revoked in the event of "convict[ion] of criminal offenses." It at least requires conviction, I'll give you that, but "criminal offenses" is an incredibly broad term, and its inclusion means that even one (1) misdemeanor conviction at any point before one's admittance can be used to justify removing
  
  • Right to communication [7a]
  • Right to visitation [7b]
  • Prohibition of indefinite detention [7d], and
  • Right to " [a] pleasant atmosphere, [...] leisure[,] and personal enrichment"[7e]
  In effect, being convicted of a trivial crime at any point in one's legal adulthood allows governments to hold a patient indefinitely and prohibit them free communication. The crime might even be usable if committed as a minor, though that's pursuant to GA legislation (if any) on adult vs. juvenile conviction, and I don't know the backlog.
  It's a rather large step, but under the wording alone of this proposal, a government could take an in-facility patient with a criminal past, hold them indefinitely, and use the revocation of the patient's right to uncensored communication to censor any attempt to communicate issues (except clear "abuse and exploitation" [C. 5]) or appeal their institutionalization.
• Separately, regardless of whether this proposal's intent was to require nations to establish a nation-wide system of mental hospitals and therapy offices, clauses 4 (nations have to treat mental illness) and 5 (patients must have "qualified and appropriate" treatment, including institutionalization if standard therapy fails) can be read as requiring this change. Regardless of whether the network's run through private or public healthcare, this places an immense financial burden on nations; One which, like Kenmoria said, nations may not be able to afford.
  If these clauses could be synthesized into something like "nations must provide therapy through existing mental healthcare networks" I could support it, but as it stands I can't.

Basically, I find myself echoing Kenmoria's sentiment: The theory behind this proposal is understandable and might have had my support, but the proposal in practice has too many flaws for me to be able to do that. Your repeal of the Institutional Psychiatry Act passed with the justification of "remove criminals' ability to exploit institutionalization to receive unfettered freedom of speech" and this proposal does do that, but it also introduces a host of other loopholes that are too large to overlook in my eyes.

Edit:

I think Kaprein has a point.

How does this:


Not conflict with this:

A right to uncensored communication clearly conflicts with member nations' right to enact reasonable restrictions on, say, exchanging pornography with developmentally disabled mental health patients.

(OOC: Well, I must say that I think that Kaprein’s right. That seems to be quite a blatant contradiction.)

Illegal by contradiction, hmm? Is it possible to pull an at-vote resolution?

[Petralaka]

The Republic of Petralaka can't support this resolution. There are far too many minor issues, and the WA continues to grab too much power. We hold that mental health individuals should be given proper treatment if a nation can afford it. However, this legislation also flat out tries to limit the scope of what individual nations can define as mental illness. This is too drastic to earn my support and should be shot down as individual cultures have a right to determine their own programs.

- The Petralakan Delegation

[Kenmoria]

The Republic of Petralaka can't support this resolution. There are far too many minor issues, and the WA continues to grab too much power. We hold that mental health individuals should be given proper treatment if a nation can afford it. However, this legislation also flat out tries to limit the scope of what individual nations can define as mental illness. This is too drastic to earn my support and should be shot down as individual cultures have a right to determine their own programs.

- The Petralakan Delegation

“I find myself in some confusion at your delegation’s concern with this proposal. It does not define what a mental illness is, which would be a very difficult task to do even with an entire proposal on the subject. That would be something deserving of criticism. Rather, the resolution-at-vote excludes gender, sexual orientation, political alignment, and religious beliefs, from being considered mental illnesses. Seeing as none of those four categories are mental illnesses, any competent nation would not regard them as such. Unless a state’s culture were opposed to, for example, the use of accurate definitions, culture has nothing to do with matters of fact. And, if a culture is opposed to the value of technical definitions, then I am not sure what that culture is doing in the General Assembly, the legislation of which relies on valid definitions.”

(OOC: Well, I must say that I think that Kaprein’s right. That seems to be quite a blatant contradiction.)

Illegal by contradiction, hmm? Is it possible to pull an at-vote resolution?

(OOC: Yes, it is.)

[Petralaka]

The main concern here is with gender identity as more conservative cultures (like our own) believe it is well within a parent's right to see therapy/psychiatric help for children who suffer from this. Completely eliminating a nation's ability to recognize gender dysphoria completely limits the ability to provide adequate assistance. If this legislation passes, there are wide ranging consequences that could go far beyond the mental health system. Clause one should be struck down.

OOC: If it is actually illegal, who can we contact to evaluate this situation?

[Jedinsto]

“I find myself in some confusion at your delegation’s concern with this proposal. It does not define what a mental illness is, which would be a very difficult task to do even with an entire proposal on the subject. That would be something deserving of criticism. Rather, the resolution-at-vote excludes gender, sexual orientation, political alignment, and religious beliefs, from being considered mental illnesses. Seeing as none of those four categories are mental illnesses, any competent nation would not regard them as such. Unless a state’s culture were opposed to, for example, the use of accurate definitions, culture has nothing to do with matters of fact. And, if a culture is opposed to the value of technical definitions, then I am not sure what that culture is doing in the General Assembly, the legislation of which relies on valid definitions.”

OOC: GenSec, who is already looking into the matter from what I can tell.

[Difinbelk]

The main concern here is with gender identity as more conservative cultures (like our own) believe it is well within a parent's right to see therapy/psychiatric help for children who suffer from this. Completely eliminating a nation's ability to recognize gender dysphoria completely limits the ability to provide adequate assistance. If this legislation passes, there are wide ranging consequences that could go far beyond the mental health system. Clause one should be struck down.

OOC: If it is actually illegal, who can we contact to evaluate this situation?

OOC: Jsyk, modern psychology tends to work off a basis of "does [thing] tend to cause harm to the patient or impair in their daily life?", not necessarily "is [thing] socioculturally normal/acceptable?" and therefore recognizes a distinction between transgenderism/transsexuality and gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is just the belief that one has a different gender than their assigned gender at birth. and isn't necessarily impairing or harmful. Gender dysphoria is psychological distress stemming from being trans; it's harmful/impairing by definition. Treatment of gender dysphoria (that is, some degree of psychological distress) is not the same as treatment of transgenderism (just a belief.)
The proposal at hand outlaws defining transsexuality as a mental illness, but it has no effect on gender dysphoria as your argument assumes, because the two are fundamentally different from a modern psychological view (transgenderism isn't harmful/impairing vs. gender dysphoria is). Anyway, I feel like my post is bordering on threadjacking now, I'm sure you could find more information about the psych at play in this proposal in the Trans Discussion Thread.

[Anterian]

The resolution itself is quite well thought out for the aftercare but is too lenient with its methods.

I will be supporting this, however I will also be listing my dissatisfaction on this topic.

Under point 1:
Religion can and in some cases should be considered to be a mental health hazard as indoctrination to religious standards of all are a forced mental state of a mentally insecure person.

Under point 6:
A person who has been diagnosed with a illness has to pass an additional examination to earn a relief from mandatory medical aid and not just having the ability to veto a expert opinion on required treatment and treatment associated responsibilities or restrictions.

Under point 7 section a:
Uncensored is all fine and well, however there should be some screening done with the content of the communication as it's possible that it could be detrimental to the wellbeing of the people on either side, as well as some having ill intent by pretending and using the system to protect themselves whilst in care.

[Petralaka]

The main concern here is with gender identity as more conservative cultures (like our own) believe it is well within a parent's right to see therapy/psychiatric help for children who suffer from this. Completely eliminating a nation's ability to recognize gender dysphoria completely limits the ability to provide adequate assistance. If this legislation passes, there are wide ranging consequences that could go far beyond the mental health system. Clause one should be struck down.

OOC: If it is actually illegal, who can we contact to evaluate this situation?

OOC: Jsyk, modern psychology tends to work off a basis of "does [thing] tend to cause harm to the patient or impair in their daily life?", not necessarily "is [thing] socioculturally normal/acceptable?" and therefore recognizes a distinction between transgenderism/transsexuality and gender dysphoria. Transgenderism is just the belief that one has a different gender than their assigned gender at birth. and isn't necessarily impairing or harmful. Gender dysphoria is psychological distress stemming from being trans; it's harmful/impairing by definition. Treatment of gender dysphoria (that is, some degree of psychological distress) is not the same as treatment of transgenderism (just a belief.)
The proposal at hand outlaws defining transsexuality as a mental illness, but it has no effect on gender dysphoria as your argument assumes, because the two are fundamentally different from a modern psychological view (transgenderism isn't harmful/impairing vs. gender dysphoria is). Anyway, I feel like my post is bordering on threadjacking now, I'm sure you could find more information about the psych at play in this proposal in the Trans Discussion Thread.

OOC: One response because I don't want to go to far off the rails, so let's just say I read your post and subscribe to a different line of thinking. We'll see where everything falls.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Just a note, "transgenderism" is wrong. The condition of being transgender is not an ism or belief anymore than being cisgender is.

Another note, on the censoring issue with the legality challenge and all, if this is declared illegal for contradiction, as looks likely, then in next version adding something like "on par with those not residing in (such a facility)" should fix it, as from what I understood, it was meant to be in addition of what's restricted by WA and the nation in general, not instead of.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Freedom of movement and lack of restraint except where freedom of movement must be limited to prevent individuals from injuring themselves or others, or to prevent them from leaving the mental health facility.

In addition to the several problems noted by others, this provision does not allow facilities to restrict patients from entering staff rest areas/breakrooms/bathrooms, or places where sensitive mental health records are stored and maintained.

[Jedinsto]

Would've been nice if this slew of issues had been pointed out during the drafting stage, but it is what it is I guess.