[PASSED] Infectious Disease Control

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

Description: The World Assembly,

Supporting ongoing efforts to control infectious disease,

Recognising that international travel to territories afflicted by public health hazards of infectious disease often requires visitors bear documented evidence of medical precautions undertaken,

Concerned that differences between national means of providing such documentation may lead to either exacerbation of infectious disease through inadvertent admission of those not having undertaken medical precautions, or unnecessary restrictions on international travel through inadvertent rejection of those having undertaken medical precautions,

Believing that a single, standard, universal certificate of medical precaution would resolve this situation,

Convinced that the World Health Authority's Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) is ideally suited to deliver such certification through its international position,

Seeking to implement such a process in a manner consistent with practical concerns and national sovereignty:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this Resolution, “medical precautions” as vaccinations, prophylaxis, and any other necessary medical, surgical or pharmaceutical mitigation of risk;
   
2. Requires that each nation encountering a public health hazard of infectious disease within their sovereign territory or any other territory under their jurisdiction:
   
   • Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions to be undertaken by visitors to that territory;
   • Publicly promulgate a travel advisory and any updates in its status until the hazard has been resolved, describing relevant medical precautions to be undertaken by visitors to that territory;
   • Inform, at minimum, their World Health Authority national office and the embassies, consulates and other diplomatic missions they have established with any nation from which they permit travel, of this advisory and of any updates in its status;
3. Directs EPARC to create a single, standard, universal certificate of medical precaution (UCMP), to include:
   
   • Name, national identity, personal identifying information and signature of recipient;
   • Name, status and signature of medical practitioner;
   • Type, date, batch and manufacturer of dose (and where necessary booster dose);
   • Stamp of issuing authority;
   • Anti-forgery measures;
4. Mandates the introduction of the UCMP to replace all divergent comparable travel documentation within a timeframe agreed between each nation and EPARC to be practical, affordable and safe, and being not more than ten years from passage of this Resolution;
   
   
5. Enjoins nations to support the implementation of the UCMP through:
   
   • Training of medical practitioners in its correct employment;
   • Training of border security and immigration agents in its recognition;
   • Enforcement of legal measures to prevent fraudulent or false use;
6. Encourages nations to negotiate expansion of the scope of UCMP recognition with other parties;
   
   
7. Emphasises that possession of a valid UCMP does not confer visa rights and that administration of the UCMP does not affect a nation's rights to control immigration, emigration, or passport status;
   
   
8. Declares that the provisions of this Resolution apply only to international travel and do not affect national documentation requirements for purely intranational travel.

[Grays Harbor]

Hmm. It has possibilties. This may well be doable.

[Jarish Inyo]

What about nations that don't use a certification of medical precaution? Or nations that are not willing to accept an universal certificate of medical precaution?

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

What about nations that don't use a certification of medical precaution?

That's a national prerogative. A nation doesn't have to require travellers to provide a certificate, if they are otherwise in compliance with this Resolution and the Epidemic Response Act.

Or nations that are not willing to accept an universal certificate of medical precaution?

I suppose that will depend on what their arguments against those presented in the Resolution text are.

[Jarish Inyo]

That's a national prerogative. A nation doesn't have to require travellers to provide a certificate, if they are otherwise in compliance with this Resolution and the Epidemic Response Act.

Nations can still require travelers to provide a health certificate of some kind. Just not a certification of medical precaution. This resolution doesn't have any real requirements for a nation to be in compliance. All it does is duplicate the requirements of the Epidemic Response Act for nations.

I suppose that will depend on what their arguments against those presented in the Resolution text are.

You don't have an argument in this proposal. Just a concern that individual nations certificates may lead to either exacerbation of infectious disease. I disagree. Continuing use of nation's individual certification of medical precaution will make it easier to identify the certificate origin and make them harder to forge then an universal certification of medical precaution.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Based on that response I'm not entirely clear that you've read the Resolution through, so I think I will wait on some other responses to clarify my thoughts before attempting a broader reply.

There are a couple of details I'd left out of the rough draft, though, and your comment reminded me of one, so thank you for that at least.

[Jarish Inyo]

I've read the entire resolution through more then once. I reread before I respond to anything just to make sure that I'm not missing anything. Though I admit I should have reread my response before hitting submit.

What I meant to say is that nations can still require health certificates to for travelers. They just might not allow certification of medical precaution as part of the certificate. Your requirements are duplication of the Epidemic Response Act.

And my last statement is valid reasons for why nations would not accept an universal certificate of medical precaution.

[Aah]

(Bump for comments. Yes, this is SWR.)

[Novea Solaria]

I actually like this proposal I find it to be interesting and definitely worth some consideration. Though I do agree that there may be a chance for duplication, there should at least be some sort of document that states that a person has met all the international requirements for health and is fit to travel because not every nation will have the same standards and requirements for health concerning travel.

[Jarish Inyo]

Why was this bumped? It was dead for 2 months.

[Aah]

Why was this bumped? It was dead for 2 months.

It wasn't "dead", I just didn't receive any further comments. It's still open to drafting and as I have more time for NS now I bumped it again.

[Grays Harbor]

Why was this bumped? It was dead for 2 months.

OOC: If the proposer wishes to reopen debate and bump this, that is legitimate. It becomes gravedigging when somebody else comes in and bumps it or makes some random comment.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why was this bumped? It was dead for 2 months.

(Bump for comments. Yes, this is SWR.)

[Chester Pearson]

(Bump for comments. Yes, this is SWR.)

I call bullshit. Why did you not bump it with the OP nation?

[Jarish Inyo]

This was dead. Any issue that has not been active for 2 months is dead. Whether or not Aah is the author or not, the issue should have been bumped by the original nation that proposed it, not a puppet nation.

[Aah]

I was asked not to post in this forum with SWR by a moderator, because they disliked how long my nation name was. As such I created this puppet, whose nation name length I thought they couldn't possibly take issue with. As you will see from the OP, I have edited in a line acknowledging this puppet with SWR. There is really no complication here.

Now, please, are there any comments on the substance of the proposal?

[Jarish Inyo]

Doesn't matter if they like the length of your nation's name or not, you should still be bumping with your WA member nation. You will not be able to edit the proposal using your puppet nation.

Again, this issue has been dead for over 2 months. Why bring it back. Nations have had plenty of time to respond if they wished. Again, an universal certificate of medical precaution will be easier to counterfeit. You've made no real argument for nations to give up their forms or accept an universal certificate of medical precaution. How is this not a duplication of the Epidemic Response Act?

[Bananaistan]

Doesn't matter if they like the length of your nation's name or not, you should still be bumping with your WA member nation. You will not be able to edit the proposal using your puppet nation.

Again, this issue has been dead for over 2 months. Why bring it back. Nations have had plenty of time to respond if they wished. Again, an universal certificate of medical precaution will be easier to counterfeit. You've made no real argument for nations to give up their forms or accept an universal certificate of medical precaution. How is this not a duplication of the Epidemic Response Act?

OOC: Why not just discuss the merits of the proposal at hand rather than being so obtuse? Especially considering that anyone other than the OP posting in the thread after a period of time from the last post would have led to accusations of gravedigging. Had the OP not bumped this thread, I would never have seen it nor had an opportunity to comment. It is common for many authors to bump their own proposals in such manner. EG, the just passed Universal Jurisdiction thread was originally posted on 15 April 2014 and had no posts from 21 June 2014 to 15 October 2014, and from 17 October 2014 to 21 December 2014. And that's just the first page. Are you suggesting that Railana should have just let that die because of some false notion you hold of an arbitrary time period in which a proposal dies?

The unreasonableness of the OP being asked not to post using the original nation is of no impact to the proposal.

IC: The preamble reasonably sets out an argument for nations to give up their own forms and use this standardised international form. We are in support of the concept.

[Jarish Inyo]

The preamble doesn't reasonably sets out an argument for nations to give up their own forms and use this standardized international form. A standardized form will be easier to counterfeit. It will not lead to either exacerbation of infectious disease through inadvertent admission of those not having undertaken medical precautions. Nor will it stop so called 'unnecessary restrictions' on international travel through inadvertent rejection of those having undertaken medical precautions. Simple fact is that a standardized international form doesn't resolve any of the concerns in the preamble. So called 'unnecessary restrictions' on international travel can still be placed even with it. Let's not forget that other then creating a worthless standardized international form, the rest of the proposal is a duplication of of the Epidemic Response Act.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Your gonna need a new title. This one definitely blows away the 30 character limit. Your also getting close to the overall 3500 character limit...

IC: "I do have a few comments. One of the issues is that, with the various species of the WA, what is a deadly disease in one nation is nothing in another. Cancer, as an example, seems to kill millions in various nations, yet doesn't exist here."

Requires that each nation encountering a public health hazard of infectious disease within their sovereign territory or any other territory under their jurisdiction:
Seek expert medical counsel to determine necessary medical precautions to be undertaken by visitors to that territory;
Publicly promulgate a travel advisory and any updates in its status until the hazard has been resolved, describing relevant medical precautions to be undertaken by visitors to that territory;
Inform, at minimum, their World Health Authority national office and the embassies, consulates and other diplomatic missions they have established with any nation from which they permit travel, of this advisory and of any updates in its status;

"You don't specify what a 'public health hazard of infectious disease' entails, after all, some nations may consider a cold to be such a thing. In the case of the first requirement, consultation should be with local, qualified medical staff as well as the WA committee, due to the differences involved. I also believe the committee would be a better, impartial choice to issue the travel advisories"

Directs EPARC to create a single, standard, universal certificate of medical precaution (UCMP), to include:
Name, national identity, personal identifying information and signature of recipient;
Name, status and signature of medical practitioner;
Type, date, batch and manufacturer of dose (and where necessary booster dose);
Stamp of issuing authority;
Anti-forgery measures;

"I fail to see why border guards and such need to know what vaccinations you received and when you received them, unless you are entering into a nation during some sort of pandemic. This is a serious privacy violation to travelers to require this information be mandatory. You could lessen it by eliminating such specifics as dosage, batch, and so forth, such things belong on file at your local doctors office, not on international identification documents."

"While I do believe some sort of international vaccination record is workable, such a thing should remain on file at doctors offices and divulged only when required, such as a patient being sick in another nation, or a traveler entering a pandemic zone. To require such things to be part of routine travel documents is a serious privacy issue, in fact, it could be seen as a breach of confidentiality. This requires work."

[Aah]

IC: The preamble reasonably sets out an argument for nations to give up their own forms and use this standardised international form. We are in support of the concept.

Thank you.

IC: "I do have a few comments. One of the issues is that, with the various species of the WA, what is a deadly disease in one nation is nothing in another. Cancer, as an example, seems to kill millions in various nations, yet doesn't exist here."

It's each nation that sets the requirements. If the disease doesn't affect their nation, then they wouldn't require medical precautions in the first place.

In fact this proposal was deliberately created with just that in mind. It is based on the Carte Jaune. But a card purely for Yellow Fever would not be appropriate for the NationStates World, so it's been broadened to cover infectious disease in general.

"You don't specify what a 'public health hazard of infectious disease' entails, after all, some nations may consider a cold to be such a thing. In the case of the first requirement, consultation should be with local, qualified medical staff as well as the WA committee, due to the differences involved. I also believe the committee would be a better, impartial choice to issue the travel advisories"

You're choosing some very curious examples. First cancer, now a cold. In neither case is it obvious there are any medical precautions that could reasonably be required travelers undertake.

"I fail to see why border guards and such need to know what vaccinations you received and when you received them, unless you are entering into a nation during some sort of pandemic. This is a serious privacy violation to travelers to require this information be mandatory. You could lessen it by eliminating such specifics as dosage, batch, and so forth, such things belong on file at your local doctors office, not on international identification documents."

"While I do believe some sort of international vaccination record is workable, such a thing should remain on file at doctors offices and divulged only when required, such as a patient being sick in another nation, or a traveler entering a pandemic zone. To require such things to be part of routine travel documents is a serious privacy issue, in fact, it could be seen as a breach of confidentiality. This requires work."

This is a fairly bizarre position. One of the basic requirements of such a certificate would be that it is presented to border officials in order to admit access. Saying "Oh don't worry, it's on file at the doctor's office" is not going to be very compelling when requesting access to a region ravaged by pandemic. Medical privacy is not a valid defence against refusing to admit whether one has taken the necessary precautions to avoid communicating infectious disease.

[Normlpeople]

"Perhaps I am mistaken. If you are intending this to be only for those entering or leaving a pandemic area, then that is fine. As I read it however, you seemingly require this to become part of normal travel documentation, and that is unacceptable to me."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Perhaps I am mistaken. If you are intending this to be only for those entering or leaving a pandemic area, then that is fine. As I read it however, you seemingly require this to become part of normal travel documentation, and that is unacceptable to me."

OOC: you know that vaccination records are a pretty normal part of obtaining a visa in real life, right?

[Bananaistan]

3 Directs EPARC to create a single, standard, universal certificate of medical precaution (UCMP), to include:
Name, national identity, personal identifying information and signature of recipient;
Name, status and signature of medical practitioner;
Type, date, batch and manufacturer of dose (and where necessary booster dose);
Stamp of issuing authority;
Anti-forgery measures;

Is this sort of completely discounting a digital certificate?

Mandates the introduction of the UCMP to replace all divergent comparable travel documentationwithin a timeframe agreed between each nation and EPARC to be practical, affordable and safe, and being not more than ten years from passage of this Resolution;

We would recommend removing the above as we don't see the necessity of these timeframes or indeed any timeframes. But perhaps you or others have some arguments in favour of keeping the timeframes?

Encourages nations to negotiate expansion of the scope of UCMP recognition with other parties;

Perhaps you could explain the purpose of this? I don't see how it's possible given that the committee is responsible for the UCMP.

[Aah]

Is this sort of completely discounting a digital certificate?

Interesting point. We're not going to mandate a digital version because that might be beyond the technical means of some nations, but we didn't mean to rule one out either.

Mandates the introduction of the UCMP to replace all divergent comparable travel documentationwithin a timeframe agreed between each nation and EPARC to be practical, affordable and safe, and being not more than ten years from passage of this Resolution;

We would recommend removing the above as we don't see the necessity of these timeframes or indeed any timeframes. But perhaps you or others have some arguments in favour of keeping the timeframes?

The argument would be that if a nation is dealing with an infectious disease right now, at the time the proposal passes, it would not be safe or practical to require they immediately change over their documentation. It would be better to wait until they have contained the outbreak. At the same time, we don't want to give nations indefinite pause, because that would defeat the whole purpose. So allowing nations to agree a timeframe with the neutral committee, and setting a hard upper limit, seemed like the best compromise.

Encourages nations to negotiate expansion of the scope of UCMP recognition with other parties;

Perhaps you could explain the purpose of this? I don't see how it's possible given that the committee is responsible for the UCMP.

It's meant to be a nod to non-members. Obviously the WA can't directly affect non-members, but a "Universal" certificate's value is in being widely recognised. So we want to encourage member nations to negotiate recognition of the UCMP with non-members while accepting the WA can't mandate such a thing.