[PASSED] Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"

[Mousebumples]

Why you should vote in favor:

• There is no consent requirement for the donation or harvesting of stem cells. Since, arguably, the donation/harvesting of stem cells is not a medical procedure (after all, it's generally not treating or curing any sort of medical condition in the donor), it is not covered under the Patient's Rights Act. This lack of consent can lead to the exploitation of donors - and also the use of unused embryos for stem cell harvesting without the consent from the guardian(s) for the tissue.
• Innovators are having their intellectual property rights waived by this resolution, which is likely to discourage (or at least slow) innovation in this area, which is counterproductive to the aims of this resolution.
• The WHA is required to fund stem cell research, which restricts its use of resources on whatever is the most promising avenue of treatment.
• I have 3 (or probably 4) replacements just about ready to submit - likely within the next week or two:
  
  1. Biomedical Donation Rights - Human Rights, Significant (may be split into 2 replacements - Biomedical Donor Rights & Biomedical Recipient Rights, with tentative drafts on both found here)
  2. Biomedical Innovation Organization - Education & Creativity, Education
  3. Biomedical Trade & Treatment - Free Trade, Mild

Drafting is still open on all those replacements, so if you have specific concerns or critiques, please do head over to those individual threads to comment.

So I've had this ... idea for a few months now. Of course, since the "idea" involves FIVE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS ... it took a bit of time to get off the ground. But here's what I have for you right now.

STEP ONE: The Repeals
(1) Organ and Blood Donations Act
(2) Stem Cells for Greater Health

I've been strongly against both for ... ages. I don't know that either repeal attempt (as being done by me) will surprise anyone. I think that the subjects are very similar and should be treated similarly on an international level. And that brings me/us to ...

STEP TWO: The Replacements
I've never replaced anything I've repealed myself. Because of my (IRL/OOC) medical background, this is one exception that I'm looking to make. I personally feel that both of these resolutions tried to do too much and didn't to much of it well, overall. As such, I "combined" the 2 concepts into "biomedical treatments" and covered 3 different arenas on the subject.

(1) Biomedical Donation Rights - Human Rights, Significant (may be split into 2 replacements - Biomedical Donor Rights & Biomedical Recipient Rights)
(2) Biomedical Innovation Organization - Education & Creativity, Education
(3) Biomedical Trade & Treatment - Free Trade, Mild

I'll admit it - my first draft as a replacement was ... a mess. I tried to focus on Free Trade and ended up all over the place - a category violation waiting to happen, probably. I ended up "forgetting that" and starting over - and writing in the order that I indend to submit (see above) - and ... that seemed to work much better. Of course, if both repeals don't pass, I doubt that I could submit any of the replacements. (Maybe - I honestly haven't checked, but it seems likely to conflict with the originals.)

Questions and concerns are certainly welcome. However, please do use the above links to jump easily between the different drafts and offer your thoughts.

Submitted Version

Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #49 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

DECLARES that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell treatments in WA member nations.

RECOGNIZES the shortcomings of this Resolution, which include:

1. The emphasis it places solely on stem-cell research:
   1. A broader base of support for innovative medical research may improve the overall health and well-being of individuals within WA member nations.
   2. Some nations may have access to technology that is more advanced than stem-cell research, which limits the usefulness of this resolution.
2. The requirement with regards to the WHA funding and conducting research into stem cells alone prevents the WHA from focusing its resources towards the most promising and effective research. Instead, the WHA is required to use their resources on stem cell research even in the face of technological advances which may make stem cell research obsolete.
3. The failure to ensure patient access and/or affordability of stem cell treatments resulting from the research and development covered in this resolution.
4. The automatic inclusion of "All breakthroughs and developments ... into the Public Domain" through this resolution waives the intellectual property rights of those who make groundbreaking discoveries and may also discourage, or at least slow, the development of new innovations.

REGRETS the lack of sufficient and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells as the resolution only states that “Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

NOTES that:

1. Consent - specifically uncoerced, informed consent - should be obtained from the donor or legal guardian of stem cell tissue, which is not required within this resolution.
2. Stem cells should be harvested as effectively and efficiently as possible, while minimizing the risk to the donor.
3. Demand for stem cells may have increased as a result of this resolution, which in turn may have resulted in unethical methods of stem cell harvesting and/or the exploitation of stem cell donors.

BELIEVES that individuals and/or private organizations that discover new stem cell innovations should retain their intellectual property rights for a period of time, in accordance with other international laws on the subject.

ACKNOWLEDGES that the World Assembly has previously affirmed the freedom of choice with regards to medical treatment and the right to medically essential drugs and treatment.

LAMENTS, however, the lack of sufficient protections for donors of stem cells within the text of this resolution.

UNDERSTANDS that this resolution is not only flawed and insufficient but may also serve as an impediment to the development of new innovations in medical technology and treatment.

ENCOURAGES the World Assembly to consider future legislation in order to promote the development of effective, cutting edge technologies in the fields of health and science.

REPEALS GAR#49, "Stem Cells For Greater Health."

Co-Authored by: Oliver the Mediocre

VERSION II

Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #49 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

DECLARES that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell treatments in WA member nations.

RECOGNIZES the shortcomings of this Resolution, which include:

1. The emphasis it places solely on stem-cell research:
   1. A broader base of support for innovative medical research may improve the overall health and well-being of individuals within WA member nations.
   2. Some nations may have access to technology that is more advanced than stem-cell research, which limits the usefulness of this resolution.
2. The requirement with regards to the WHA funding and conducting research into stem cell uses alone prevents the WHA from focusing its resources towards the most promising and effective research. Instead, the WHA is required to use their resources on stem cell research even in the face of technological advances which may make stem cell research obsolete.
3. The failure to ensure patient access and/or affordability of stem cell treatments resulting from the research and development covered in this resolution.
4. The automatic inclusion of "All breakthroughs and developments ... into the Public Domain" within this resolution waives the intellectual property rights of those who make such discoveries and may also discourage, or at least slow, the development of further innovations.

REGRETS the lack of sufficiently appropriate and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells from any/all of their varied viable sources as the resolution only states that “Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

BELIEVES that:

1. Stem cells should be harvested as effectively and efficiently as possible, while minimizing the risk to the donor.
2. Consent - specifically uncoerced, informed consent - should be obtained from the donor or legal guardian of stem cell tissue, which is not required within this resolution.
3. Demand for stem cells may have increased as a result of this resolution, which may have resulted in unethical methods of stem cell harvesting and/or the exploitation of stem cell donors.
4. Individuals and private organizations that discover new innovations with regards to stem cell research should retain their intellectual property rights for a period of time, in accordance with other international laws on the subject.

NOTES the World Assembly has previously affirmed the freedom of choice with regards to medical treatment and the right to medically essential drugs and treatment.

LAMENTS, however, the lack of choice for donors of stem cells and the lack of access for patients receiving stem cell treatment within the text of this resolution.

UNDERSTANDS that this resolution is not only flawed and insufficient but may also serve as an impediment to the development of new innovations in medical technology and treatment.

ENCOURAGES the World Assembly to work to develop and promote the development of effective, cutting edge technologies in the fields of health and science.

REPEALS GAR#49, "Stem Cells For Greater Health".

Co-Authored by: Oliver the Mediocre

Version I

Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #49 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

DECLARES that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell treatments in WA member nations.

RECOGNIZES the necessity for the protection of potentially contentious medical research, including but not limited to stem cell research.

APPLAUDS the intent of this resolution, for its attempts at protecting an important avenue of medical research.

HIGHLIGHTS the myriad weaknesses of the Resolution, which include:

1. The emphasis it places solely on stem-cell research:
   1. A broader base of support for innovative medical research may better encourage greater overall health and well-being in WA member nations.
   2. Some nations may have access to newer technology which may be more effective and further advanced than stem-cell research, which limits the usefulness of this resolution.
2. The requirement with regards to the WHA funding and conducting research into stem cell uses alone restricts the WHA from focusing its resources towards the most promising and effective research by instead requiring that their resources be directed towards stem cell research even in the face of technological advances which make stem cell research obsolete.
3. The failure to ensure patient access and/or affordability of stem cell treatments resulting from the research and development covered in this resolution.

REGRETS the lack of sufficiently appropriate and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells from any/all of their varied viable sources as the resolution only states that “Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

BELIEVES that:

1. Stem cells should be harvested as effectively and efficiently as possible, with as little risk to the donor as possible.
2. Consent, specifically uncoerced, informed consent, should be obtained from the donor or legal guardian of stem cell tissue, which is not required within this resolution.
3. Demand for stem cells may have increased as a result of this resolution, which may have resulted in unethical methods of stem cell harvesting and/or the exploitation of stem cell donors.
4. Compensation the donation of stem cell tissue may be appropriate, but it is not covered within this resolution.

[/list]NOTES the World Assembly has affirmed the freedom of choice with regards to medical treatment, and the right to medically essential drugs and treatment.

LAMENTS, however, the lack of choice for donors of stem cells or patients receiving stem cell treatment within the text of this resolution.

ARGUES that this resolution is not only flawed and insufficient but may even serve as an impediment to the development of new innovations in medical technology and treatment.

ENCOURAGES the World Assembly to work to develop and promote effective, cutting edge technologies in the fields of health and science.

REPEALS GAR#49, "Stem Cells For Greater Health".

Co-Authored by: Oliver the Mediocre

As always, comments and critiques are appreciated.

[Unibot II]

Barnhart nodded and edged his glasses into his face, "Our delegation can support a repeal of 'Stem Cells for Greater Health', for one thing, Heir Industries has never found the Stem Cell therapy to be particularly profitable compared to our pharmaceutical and conventional surgery treatments. Stem Cells promised recoveries from Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury etc. but we've seen failing investments in early public trading for Stem Cells. Heir Industries pushed for regenerative medicine to meet political demands from international law when it should have been focusing on our pharmaceuticals that were further along in the drug-screening -- Stem Cell therapy has simply been an financial unprofitable and has shown no signs of returns while our products are still stuck in trials and ethics commissions."

"I recommend wording the AFFIRMS clause clearer and more direct, with underlining on key words and furthermore checking the BELIEVES clause (4) for grammar."

[Auralia]

I will refrain from giving an opinion on this repeal until I have a chance to look at the replacement.

[Mousebumples]

"I recommend wording the AFFIRMS clause clearer and more direct, with underlining on key words and furthermore checking the BELIEVES clause (4) for grammar."

Ahh, good catch on the BELIEVES clause. I've re-edited that ... waaaay too many times.

Any specific recommendations on the AFFIRMS clause? I'll admit to ... wishing I didn't have to include it, but given the problems we've encountered when trying to repeal this in the past, it seems necessary.

I will refrain from giving an opinion on this repeal until I have a chance to look at the replacement.

There are 3 replacements as of right now. And not that there are 3 COMPETING replacements. There are 3 complementary replacements. I'll be posting up drafts on those shortly - with a whole long "EXPLANATION/PLAN" atop each of these 5 threads, linking back and forth, once they're all posted and started. So ... within a few hours, everything should be set as I'd like it to be.

I think (hope?) that you'll like the replacements, as my Nat Sov side is shining through - to some extent, at least.

Yours in appreciation,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Unibot II]

Since the AFFIRMS clause is essentially for the lowest common denominator of the WA, you might as well dumb it down and emphasize it as much as possible:

DISCLAIMERS that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell therapy in member-nations,

[Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

We like it and support it 100%. We do not feel the need to see a replacement

-Col. George Hentzau
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Supreme & Exalted Empire of Gatchina
The Holy Moosean Empire

[Mousebumples]

Since the AFFIRMS clause is essentially for the lowest common denominator of the WA, you might as well dumb it down and emphasize it as much as possible:

DISCLAIMERS that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell therapy in member-nations,

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm going to change around the language a bit, of course (make it "me"), but that's probably the right approach. Thanks for the suggestion.

We like it and support it 100%. We do not feel the need to see a replacement

At the risk of having my NatSov membership card revoked, I honestly disagree on this subject. I feel that Stem Cell Research (or, more generally, Biomedical Treatments) are something that should be legislated on by the WA.

Thanks for the support,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We will be further reviewing this legislation later, but from first reading we do notice a single point which we are unhappy about:

REGRETS the lack of sufficiently appropriate and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells from any/all of their varied viable sources as the resolution only states “mandates that the Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

Either the word states or mandates could go, so as not to interrupt the flow.

Other than this small matter, we are tentatively in favour of all 5 proposals of this set.

[Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

We like it and support it 100%. We do not feel the need to see a replacement

At the risk of having my NatSov membership card revoked, I honestly disagree on this subject. I feel that Stem Cell Research (or, more generally, Biomedical Treatments) are something that should be legislated on by the WA.

*Chuckles* Go ahead, you know we think you have the right to do whatever you want, write all the repleacements you want, I won't think any less of you. We just didn't feel the need to see one. I'm sure your membership card will remain safe.

-Col. George Hentzau
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Supreme & Exalted Empire of Gatchina
The Holy Moosean Empire

[Mousebumples]

New draft. I didn't really differentiate between the "first" and the "second" in the OP - mostly because the changes were really just cosmetic to a line or two. The arguments didn't change, really.

Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #49 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

DECLARES that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell treatments in WA member nations.

RECOGNIZES the necessity for the protection of potentially contentious medical research, including but not limited to stem cell research.

APPLAUDS the intent of this resolution, for its attempts at protecting an important avenue of medical research.

HIGHLIGHTS the myriad weaknesses of the Resolution, which include:

1. The emphasis it places solely on stem-cell research:
   1. A broader base of support for innovative medical research may better encourage greater overall health and well-being in WA member nations.
   2. Some nations may have access to newer technology which may be more effective and further advanced than stem-cell research, which limits the usefulness of this resolution.
2. The requirement with regards to the WHA funding and conducting research into stem cell uses alone restricts the WHA from focusing its resources towards the most promising and effective research by instead requiring that their resources be directed towards stem cell research even in the face of technological advances which make stem cell research obsolete.
3. The failure to ensure patient access and/or affordability of stem cell treatments resulting from the research and development covered in this resolution.

REGRETS the lack of sufficiently appropriate and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells from any/all of their varied viable sources as the resolution only states that “Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

BELIEVES that:

1. Stem cells should be harvested as effectively and efficiently as possible, with as little risk to the donor as possible.
2. Consent, specifically uncoerced, informed consent, should be obtained from the donor or legal guardian of stem cell tissue, which is not required within this resolution.
3. Demand for stem cells may have increased as a result of this resolution, which may have resulted in unethical methods of stem cell harvesting and/or the exploitation of stem cell donors.
4. Compensation the donation of stem cell tissue may be appropriate, but it is not covered within this resolution.

NOTES the World Assembly has affirmed the freedom of choice with regards to medical treatment, and the right to medically essential drugs and treatment.

LAMENTS, however, the lack of choice for donors of stem cells or patients receiving stem cell treatment within the text of this resolution.

ARGUES that this resolution is not only flawed and insufficient but may even serve as an impediment to the development of new innovations in medical technology and treatment.

ENCOURAGES the World Assembly to work to develop and promote effective, cutting edge technologies in the fields of health and science.

REPEALS GAR#49, "Stem Cells For Greater Health".

Co-Authored by: Oliver the Mediocre

Further thoughts and critiques are welcome. Thanks!

[Christian Democrats]

STRONGLY AGAINST.

This repeal proposal inevitably leads to an attempt by the misguided consequentialists and advocates of death in this Assembly to restrict the right of nations to ensure ethicality in this important area of medical research.

[Ossitania]

STRONGLY AGAINST.

This repeal proposal inevitably leads to an attempt by the misguided consequentialists and advocates of death in this Assembly to restrict the right of nations to ensure ethicality in this important area of medical research.

Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, but could you please indicate who is planning to propose a replacement to this legislation that forces nations to allow the use of embyronic stem cells in stem cell resesarch? Because I'm a broad consequentialist and would consider such legislation to be an extreme overreach of the WA's mandate.

[Mousebumples]

STRONGLY AGAINST.

This repeal proposal inevitably leads to an attempt by the misguided consequentialists and advocates of death in this Assembly to restrict the right of nations to ensure ethicality in this important area of medical research.

Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, but could you please indicate who is planning to propose a replacement to this legislation that forces nations to allow the use of embyronic stem cells in stem cell resesarch? Because I'm a broad consequentialist and would consider such legislation to be an extreme overreach of the WA's mandate.

Especially since the REPLACEMENTS LINKED IN THE OP clearly allow for member states to regulate stem cells.

Glad to see that the ambassador from the Christian Democrats is keeping with their current habits of only half-reading information presented in this debate chamber and just filling in the blanks with whatever best works to forward their agenda.

Yours in disappointment,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Christian Democrats]

I never said that you would attempt such a proposal. If this repeal proposal passes, then I believe that it is inevitable that someone will attempt a "legalize embryonic stem cell research" proposal, which likely would pass. The current resolution is fine. It should remain in place because it blocks attempts to impose embryonic stem cell research on member states.

[Ossitania]

I never said that you would attempt such a proposal. If this repeal proposal passes, then I believe that it is inevitable that someone will attempt a "legalize embryonic stem cell research" proposal, which likely would pass. The current resolution is fine. It should remain in place because it blocks attempts to impose embryonic stem cell research on member states.

Where is the evidence of your beliefs? Why do you think it's inevitable? Why do you think it will pass?

[Krioval]

I find that the predominant worry about this repeal, namely that nations are going to be forced to fund stem-cell research, is utterly ridiculous, and yet it seems to never die. First, "Stem Cells for Greater Health" is a monstrosity that needs to be repealed not because it is lacking in good intentions but because it is lacking in good execution. It creates a bizarre patchwork of regulations that can be a mess to untangle regardless of whether one's home nation wants to restrict or promote certain aspects of biological research. It focuses on a single technology in a way that disregards the many WA member nations and technologies available in those nations. For these reasons, "Stem Cells for Greater Health" should be stricken from the books.

Now, if there is concern that the WA could forcibly legalize stem cell research in one of its fits of legislative overreach, the solution is to craft a more suitable blocker than "Stem Cells for Greater Health". I would suggest something that affirms nations' rights to regulate publicly funded research in general, which only seems prudent in any case. Even if a pro-stem cell resolution were to pass, I can conceive of no circumstance in which an individual would be able to perform this research without funding, and it seems simple enough for a government to deny funding based on its current priorities. Private funding can be more difficult to regulate, but I sincerely doubt that there is a rush for private investment in research that is actively opposed by the nation in which a given business finds itself. Multinational businesses will shift their funding toward stem cell projects in nations where they will deliver the greatest financial impact, and local businesses will realize that there is diminishing profitability in stem cell research and redirect their energy toward another project (or dissolve).

It seems that many nations' ambassadors to this Assembly should remind their home governments of their sovereignty and ability to create legislative solutions to all but the most emphatic WA mandates.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Linux and the X]

If this repeal proposal passes, then I believe that it is inevitable that someone will attempt a "legalize embryonic stem cell research" proposal, which likely would pass.

If you believe it would pass, it follows that you believe the majority opinion is that embryonic stem cell research should be legalised throughout the WA. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

[Sovreignry]

If this repeal proposal passes, then I believe that it is inevitable that someone will attempt a "legalize embryonic stem cell research" proposal, which likely would pass.

If you believe it would pass, it follows that you believe the majority opinion is that embryonic stem cell research should be legalised throughout the WA. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

Because we all know that the WA is a true democracy.

Otherwise we support.

[Christian Democrats]

If this repeal proposal passes, then I believe that it is inevitable that someone will attempt a "legalize embryonic stem cell research" proposal, which likely would pass.

If you believe it would pass, it follows that you believe the majority opinion is that embryonic stem cell research should be legalised throughout the WA. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

Of course, democracy is always right.

vox populi vox Dei non est

You believe that children should have equal privileges to adults. The majority believes that adults should be allowed to restrict the behavior of their children. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

In the United States, the majority believes that induced abortion should be illegal except in cases of maternal life, maternal health, rape, incest, and fetal defects. In other words, the majority holds that 93 percent of induced abortions should be prohibited. Should the majority view be allowed to prevail on the abortion issue? I say that it should on this issue and that further restrictions to protect human life should be legislated.

[Sciongrad]

If you believe it would pass, it follows that you believe the majority opinion is that embryonic stem cell research should be legalised throughout the WA. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

Of course, democracy is always right.

vox populi vox Dei non est

You believe that children should have equal privileges to adults. The majority believes that adults should be allowed to restrict the behavior of their children. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

In the United States, the majority believes that induced abortion should be illegal except in cases of maternal life, maternal health, rape, incest, and fetal defects. In other words, the majority holds that 93 percent of induced abortions should be prohibited. Should the majority view be allowed to prevail on the abortion issue? I say that it should on this issue and that further restrictions to protect human life should be legislated.

I have a strong intuition that Linux was being sarcastic. Although I don't see how this proves your assertion that an extremist resolution will even be drafted, let alone passed, should this repeal pass; especially considering Mouse has a perfectly good replacement that you've seemingly rejected on that grounds that said extremist resolution will inevitably pass anyway.

[Linux and the X]

Of course, democracy is always right.

Oh, I forgot, the WA vote is influenced by coercion.

vox populi vox Dei non est

Ooh, Latin! Fancy!

[spoiler]You believe that children should have equal privileges to adults. The majority believes that adults should be allowed to restrict the behavior of their children. Why, then, do you oppose allowing the majority view to prevail? Do you hate democracy?

I oppose the majority view because it restricts people's rights. The use of foetal stem cells, however, does not.

In the United States, the majority believes that induced abortion should be illegal except in cases of maternal life, maternal health, rape, incest, and fetal defects. In other words, the majority holds that 93 percent of induced abortions should be prohibited. Should the majority view be allowed to prevail on the abortion issue? I say that it should on this issue and that further restrictions to protect human life should be legislated.

Actually, the majority supports legalising abortion on demand. I'm sure you have a poll backing up your claim; if I wanted to grab a source for mine, I'm sure you'll agree I could. Even if you were undeniably right about the numbers, though, there is a difference between ignoring the majority when they want to restrict rights (abortion, by your claim) and ignoring the majority where they do not want to restrict rights (using foetal stem cells).

I have a strong intuition that Linux was being sarcastic.

Mostly, I was looking for a statement on why the majority view should be ignored. Apparently the answer is "because Nazis".

[Christian Democrats]

I believe you forgot about the most important right: the right to be alive.

Without that one, no other rights could exist.

"Poll: 59% of Americans Want All, Most Abortions Illegal" (24 May 2012)

[Scion Lop On]

I believe you forgot about the most important right: the right to be alive.

Without that one, no other rights could exist.

"Poll: 59% of Americans Want All, Most Abortions Illegal" (24 May 2012)

What? What does that have to do with anything? Even if you were somehow trying to connect this to embryonic stem cell research... Weren't you the one that said democracy isn't a reliable indicator of validity? Either way, let's try and refrain from turning a legitimate repeal, into an abortion debate. Because that's not what this is about.

[Mousebumples]

Updated draft:

Repeal "Stem Cells for Greater Health"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #49 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

DECLARES that repealing GAR#49, "Stem Cells for Greater Health," will not prohibit stem cell treatments in WA member nations.

RECOGNIZES the shortcomings of this Resolution, which include:

1. The emphasis it places solely on stem-cell research:
   1. A broader base of support for innovative medical research may improve the overall health and well-being of individuals within WA member nations.
   2. Some nations may have access to technology that is more advanced than stem-cell research, which limits the usefulness of this resolution.
2. The requirement with regards to the WHA funding and conducting research into stem cell uses alone prevents the WHA from focusing its resources towards the most promising and effective research. Instead, the WHA is required to use their resources on stem cell research even in the face of technological advances which may make stem cell research obsolete.
3. The failure to ensure patient access and/or affordability of stem cell treatments resulting from the research and development covered in this resolution.
4. The automatic inclusion of "All breakthroughs and developments ... into the Public Domain" within this resolution waives the intellectual property rights of those who make such discoveries and may also discourage, or at least slow, the development of further innovations.

REGRETS the lack of sufficiently appropriate and necessary regulations and/or guidelines when harvesting stem cells from any/all of their varied viable sources as the resolution only states that “Stem Cells must be harvested in the most humane and least destructive way possible.”

BELIEVES that:

1. Stem cells should be harvested as effectively and efficiently as possible, while minimizing the risk to the donor.
2. Consent - specifically uncoerced, informed consent - should be obtained from the donor or legal guardian of stem cell tissue, which is not required within this resolution.
3. Demand for stem cells may have increased as a result of this resolution, which may have resulted in unethical methods of stem cell harvesting and/or the exploitation of stem cell donors.
4. Individuals and private organizations that discover new innovations with regards to stem cell research should retain their intellectual property rights for a period of time, in accordance with other international laws on the subject.

NOTES the World Assembly has previously affirmed the freedom of choice with regards to medical treatment and the right to medically essential drugs and treatment.

LAMENTS, however, the lack of choice for donors of stem cells and the lack of access for patients receiving stem cell treatment within the text of this resolution.

UNDERSTANDS that this resolution is not only flawed and insufficient but may also serve as an impediment to the development of new innovations in medical technology and treatment.

ENCOURAGES the World Assembly to work to develop and promote the development of effective, cutting edge technologies in the fields of health and science.

REPEALS GAR#49, "Stem Cells For Greater Health".

Co-Authored by: Oliver the Mediocre

Many of the changes are (largely) cosmetic, but I feel that the newly added argument regarding the Public Domain clause is one that I'd overlooked previously.

The resolution reads, for that line in full: 3) CREATES the Stem Cell and Alternative Treatment Research Office to the WHA. Their objective is to research and develop potential cures and medicines derived from Stem Cells to help combat the effects of illness and injury. They shall be attached to the Health Research and Development Division (HRDD). All breakthroughs and developments shall be published and put into the Public Domain.
The intent of this clause may have been to only focus on breakthroughs and developments from the SC&ATRO of the WHA. However, it does say ALL breakthroughs and developments, which could arguably be farther reaching than merely Stem Cell research.

I'm sure someone else can (and perhaps will) come in and make a more coherent Intellectual Property argument, but - bottom line? While I can understand the desire to not keep lifesaving treatments behind a paywall, automatically moving such developments into the Public Domain seems like a step too far. I may end up splitting that off into its own "argument line," but thoughts and critiques are - as always - welcome.

Cheers, etc.

[Damanucus]

I'll have to admit, of the two repeals in question, this is the one I like more, and am more willing to support. There are three things that actually stood out for me:

1. The lack of detailed process for the harvesting of cells. This is the biggest one for me, and I would like to see, in a replacement, a detailed list of requirements for their harvest.
2. The lack of requirement for consent, although I think there is a resolution which could cover that. (Wasn't that brought up in the first medical practices bill?)
3. The lack of affordability and access clauses; again, this may be covered in a bill somewhere, or simply by nations' health care bills (although, in the case where the former does not exist, I think it's fair to assume that the latter may not exist).

I'll approve this, with the expectation of a decent replacement.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus