[ABANDONED] Repeal GA #582 "Access To Effective Medications"

[Polomon Islands]

[Abandoned]

[Outer Sparta]

Nowhere close to being a good repeal.

[Polomon Islands]

Nowhere close to being a good repeal.

Hmm I wonder why.

[Polomon Islands]

Nowhere close to being a good repeal.

Hmm I wonder why.

Is there anything that should be changed? (I know everyone says All of it should be changed.)
But show me some of the mistakes I made in this repeal draft please.

[Rick Perry]

Hmm I wonder why.

Is there anything that should be changed? (I know everyone says All of it should be changed.)
But show me some of the mistakes I made in this repeal draft please.

Well. Personally as a noob at the WA I tend to stay as far away from drafts. Personally I think that it was well written and I see no issues with this.

[Polomon Islands]

Is there anything that should be changed? (I know everyone says All of it should be changed.)
But show me some of the mistakes I made in this repeal draft please.

Well. Personally as a noob at the WA I tend to stay as far away from drafts. Personally I think that it was well written and I see no issues with this.

Im still waiting for Outer Sparta to respond to whats wrong with this

[Outer Sparta]

Well. Personally as a noob at the WA I tend to stay as far away from drafts. Personally I think that it was well written and I see no issues with this.

Im still waiting for Outer Sparta to respond to whats wrong with this

Besides the glaring formatting messes, I also have gripes with this section:

The Republic of European WA Headquarters,

What do you mean by this?

[Xanthorrhoea]

I’m obviously against this, but in the interest of fairness: This is currently illegal from a branding/meta gaming perspective. If you’re serious about this, then remove the references to the region and in-game organisations, and simply state your arguments.

Re: the arguments themselves: the ‘loophole’ is not a bug, it’s a feature, and I deliberately and explicitly included it. As I stated in the original discussion thread:

1. The resolution does not guarantee any right for nations to make them illegal. (I worded this carefully) It simply does not disallow it.
2. The simple fact of the matter is that not all medical practices are legal everywhere (e.g.euthanasia). This is undeniable. Because of this fact, there are two possibilities for this resolution if the legality exception did not exist.
   
   1. Medications that are illegal in any nation anywhere cannot be included on the EML. This means that a single nutcase nation banning paracetamol means that it gets removed from the EML, and people in all nations lose access to it. Given how many nations exist in the WA, this would leave a very empty and totally ineffective EML. This (to me) is not quite ideal [sarcasm detector goes ping].
   2. Medications on the EML must be legal in all WA nations. This is also bad, as it forces nations to accept medical practices that they disagree with. e.g. Including euthanasia meds on the EML requires them to be legal in all WA nations. This would turn “Access to Effective Medications” into the “Legalise potentially any medical practice act”. This would also be bad [ping]
      
      But what if we limit the EML to non-controversial meds that everyone accepts as good? Isn’t there a middle ground?
      
      No. There isn’t. What is controversial changes with time, place, politics, and sanity, and this approach will lead to situation “a” above. I also believe (and this is my own belief here), that practices such as euthanasia should be considered essential and effective, and deserve a spot on this list. My compromise allows them to exist on the list, and people to access them where it’s legal to do so. This way, nutty nations’ lunacy stays quarantined with them, and the rest of the WA doesn’t have to deal with the fallout of their choices, only they do. My nation should not be affected by your nation’s political choices, and vice versa.
3. The “For all people” bit is an inelegant, but I believe effective way to stop dictators from banning all meds for poor people, while keeping them legal for themselves.

Essentially, the essence of the legality clause is that everyone wears the consequences of their own choices, and doesn’t impose them on anyone else.

Re: the border hopping argument, I find it quite weak. Firstly, the resolution guarantees access to “residents of a nation.” Someone hopping across the border for a shopping trip is not resident. Second, the resolution does not mandate free meds, only encourages practices to minimise costs. The only binding part relating to price requires nations to control prices so people can afford them and not break the bank. That’s very different to ‘free.’
Third, free/cheap meds already existed in many nations prior to this resolution, this just made them more common. If a nation’s healthcare system is awful enough to inspire border hopping for meds, then border hopping was likely already happening well before this was passed.

I’m happy for people to repeal this if there are genuine issues with it, but I’m not convinced by these arguments. I acknowledge I’m the most biased person here though, so if there’s genuine consensus on this from others, then good luck I guess?