[PASSED] Repeal 'World Assembly Central Medicinal [...]'

[Helaw]

OOC: Rough draft. New to repeals, don't shoot me. Posting this now, as the proposal looks very likely to pass (unless something drastic happens).

Repeal 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'

Category: Repeal

The World Assembly,

Commending the principles outlined and adhered to by the target resolution,

Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge' as it omits specific medical cases, which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

Bamboozled by technological research being discounted in the definition of 'medicinal knowledge', as this prevents innumerable medical technologies and biomedical advances from being archived by the WACMD (many of which are integral to having a full understanding of modern medicinal science),

Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined by the resolution, as the active clauses instead use the separate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency allowing member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

Noting that the medical applications of technologies developed during the creation of biological weapons in the world's history would be discarded simply due to their initial place of origin,

Puzzled by the fact that the proposal both allows access to the WACMD database by 'all' - an ambiguous term - and exclusively to WA member nations; a notable contradiction that, depending on interpretation, may allow for dangerous and potentially malicious misuse of the database by non-member nations,

Appalled by the fact that the WACMD database exists solely online, restricting access to member nations that possess digital networks,

Displeased with the waste of World Assembly funds that the target resolution ultimately represents, as other resolutions such as GA #103, GA #78, and GA #31 already perform most - if not all - of the important functions that the target resolution details,

Bemused by the failure of the resolution to specify any form of curation in regards to submitted medical data, leading to potentially misleading information being added to the database,

Believing that the resolution is not fit to legislate in regards to the restriction and regulation of private medical research nor per-nation medical legislation and policy, and that it overstretches its focus by attempting to do so,

Hereby repeals GA #400, 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! (We try to welcome all GA newbies, no matter their NS experience elsewhere. )

I'd also like to point out the error that I pointed out on the target's thread before it went to vote, but which was apparently ignored by the author:

Just noticed that you define "medicinal information" but use "medical information" in the body of the proposal, which neuters all of its active clauses, as it lets nations interprete "medical information" as whatever the hell they like.

Your only use of "medicinal" is in "medicinal discoveries", but again, not defined, so can be interpreted as whatever the nations feel like.

OOC: To put that in RL examples, nations could inform the WA that they have discovered how to effectively kill bacteriums (penicillin and other antibiotics), how to use invisible rays to detect broken bones (röntgen, also known as x-rays) and how to use magnetic fields to see details inside living bodies (MRI) without going into any details.

[Helaw]

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! (We try to welcome all GA newbies, no matter their NS experience elsewhere. )

I'd also like to point out the error that I pointed out on the target's thread before it went to vote, but which was apparently ignored by the author:

Just noticed that you define "medicinal information" but use "medical information" in the body of the proposal, which neuters all of its active clauses, as it lets nations interprete "medical information" as whatever the hell they like.

Your only use of "medicinal" is in "medicinal discoveries", but again, not defined, so can be interpreted as whatever the nations feel like.

OOC: To put that in RL examples, nations could inform the WA that they have discovered how to effectively kill bacteriums (penicillin and other antibiotics), how to use invisible rays to detect broken bones (röntgen, also known as x-rays) and how to use magnetic fields to see details inside living bodies (MRI) without going into any details.

OOC: Fair point. Added.

[Mississippabama]

I'm not sure how this forum works, but I feel that this is worth adding:



Believing that this resolution, particularly the clause requiring all WA nations to submit all medical knowledge not contained in one of the exemptions to the WACMD and the exemption for biological weapon research, could encourage the use of biological weapons through ways including but not limited to:
Using medical technology for biological weapon research to avoid having to share it.
Information on the WACMD being used to help nations to develop biological weapons through one of the following means:
Nations feeling blackmailed by the resolution into posting medical research on the WACMD to avoid having to admit that it was biological weapon research and that they were developing biological weapons
Believing that the potential for this intrudes WA members' freedoms and national security and could set precedent for further such intrusions in the future
Lesser-developed and less scientifically advanced nations fearing that failure to submit any medical information to the WACMD could result in them losing access to its potentially live-saving for their citizens medical knowledge
Well-intended leaks by government employees merely attempting to maintain an international balance of power
The fact that even basic medical research may be instrumental in one country's research and development of a biological weapon to use against a country of a different species

[Draconae]

OOC: Support. You make some good points. And welcome to the General Assembly!

Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge', as it omits specific medical cases which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

I'm not sure this is quite right. Couldn't a nation still put anonymized information about this one-case disease into the database? Or, are you arguing that, since it was only present in one case, it by definition pertains to 'specific medical cases'?

Anyway, you may also want to include some of the arguments I just posted in the other thread.

Establishes a World Assembly Central Medicinal Database (WACMD), with the purpose of:

• Accepting medical knowledge from those who contribute it,
• Archiving historical and present medicinal discoveries and knowledge in a centralized digital database, accessible by all,
• Providing access of such information to the nations of the WA, and ensuring the preservation of aforementioned medical knowledge,
• Establishing an online database for all collected and archived medical knowledge,
• Providing access to archived knowledge for educational purposes;

"These bullet points seem unnecessarily repetitive. Couldn't you have included 'online' in the second bullet point? Also, wouldn't 'accessable by all' include for educational purposes? However, the other major problem here is that some nations don't have any digital networks, so they won't be able to access this information, as it is entirely digital."

Mandates that all WA Nations pass laws to promote healthcare, medicinal and pharmaceutical research, and preservation of medical knowledge;

"This clause is very vague, which will lead nations to interpret it in a number of different ways, from a reduction in regulations for healthcare and medical research to nationalization of healthcare. You may not have wanted some of those outcomes. Furthermore, why should nations have to promote medical research and the preservation of medical knowledge if the WA, under this resolution, is already doing so? This clause does not really make any sense."

Affirms the right for private and corporate entities to participate in their own research and production of medicinal and pharmaceutical goods and information, albeit under WA and WACMD regulation, if applicable and approved by the WA.

"Finally, we come to this clause, which (unintentionally, I'm sure) makes the WA responsible for approving any and all research and production of medicinal and pharmaceutical goods. Now, with all the good things that the WA has done, I don't believe they should be responsible for this, as this will either entirely bog down the WA or see a committee control all non-governmental medical research. Furthermore, this doesn't even specify what committee controls this approval process. This is so vague that a plausible interpretation is that the WA might need to pass a resolution to approve any individual research project. In addition, in response to the argument that individual nations would shut down medical research, this database would actually solve that, because all nations would have access, so any nation or corporation could build on the achievements of another. Instead, by imposing this centralized control, the WA could shut down all non-governmental medical research, which would only leave governments, with sometimes limited funding, doing research."

[Helaw]

Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge', as it omits specific medical cases which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

I'm not sure this is quite right. Couldn't a nation still put anonymized information about this one-case disease into the database? Or, are you arguing that, since it was only present in one case, it by definition pertains to 'specific medical cases'?

OOC: The full line is 'information pertaining to specific medical cases and records,' which has very difficult wording. My interpretation (meaning: It is too broad and ambiguous) is that it refers to any information coming from specific cases, which would isolate incidents that come from a very small number of cases due to the fact that they could be arbitrarily seen as 'specific'. For example, if a very interesting medical occurrence / anomaly was found within a single patient, this clause would ensure that any relevant information could not be included within the database. This interpretation is compounded by the fact that the clause mentions patient records before this.

I'll look over the suggested arguments to add when I find the time. Thank you all.

[Draconae]

I'm not sure this is quite right. Couldn't a nation still put anonymized information about this one-case disease into the database? Or, are you arguing that, since it was only present in one case, it by definition pertains to 'specific medical cases'?

OOC: The full line is 'information pertaining to specific medical cases and records,' which has very difficult wording. My interpretation (meaning: It is too broad and ambiguous) is that it refers to any information coming from specific cases, which would isolate incidents that come from a very small number of cases due to the fact that they could be arbitrarily seen as 'specific'. For example, if a very interesting medical occurrence / anomaly was found within a single patient, this clause would ensure that any relevant information could not be included within the database. This interpretation is compounded by the fact that the clause mentions patient records before this.

OOC: Okay, I could see that being a reasonable interpretation.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

I personally can't help but notice that anatomy is totally absent from the resolution at vote- that's a vital part of medical and particularly surgical knowledge.

[Araraukar]

I personally can't help but notice that anatomy is totally absent from the resolution at vote- that's a vital part of medical and particularly surgical knowledge.

I think it's fair to assume that "medical information" can be read to include anatomy knowledge. I mean, the target of this repeal doesn't actually define what it means by "medical information"...

[Aclion]

Does anyone else find.

Confounded by the inconsistent terminology used throughout, specifically in regards to that of 'medicinal knowledge' versus 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency leading to a high level of individual member nation interpretation of clauses consisting of the latter,

Difficult to understand. I feel like I would have trouble with it, if I did not already know what it was referring too.

[Excidium Planetis]

Does anyone else find.

Confounded by the inconsistent terminology used throughout, specifically in regards to that of 'medicinal knowledge' versus 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency leading to a high level of individual member nation interpretation of clauses consisting of the latter,

Difficult to understand. I feel like I would have trouble with it, if I did not already know what it was referring too.

"I personally found it quite confusing, until I read Madam Ambassador Leveret's explanation of it in the transcript." Blackbourne agrees. "I advise the authoring delegation to clarify that clause. Perhaps something about how nations can ignore the definition of medicinal knowledge because it isn't used, and use their own definition of medical knowledge because it isn't defined.

"It almost reminds me of a definition in a proposal on freedom of religion." Blackbourne adds.

[Araraukar]

"I personally found it quite confusing, until I read Madam Ambassador Leveret's explanation of it in the transcript." Blackbourne agrees.

Perhaps something like "Alarmed that while the resolution defines "medicinal knowledge", this term is not actually used; instead the active clauses use "medical knowledge", which leaves the member nations free to define it themselves as whatever happens to suit their own interests"?

[Helaw]

Does anyone else find.

Confounded by the inconsistent terminology used throughout, specifically in regards to that of 'medicinal knowledge' versus 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency leading to a high level of individual member nation interpretation of clauses consisting of the latter,

Difficult to understand. I feel like I would have trouble with it, if I did not already know what it was referring too.

"An astute observation. The typewriter monkeys will be whipped into shape."

OOC: I've taken a few of the suggestions and worked them into the draft.

[Araraukar]

Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined while the active clauses instead use the disparate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', thus allowing for member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

OOC: As a non-native English user, I suggest not using "disparate", as I at least had to look it up just now, despite having run into it before. Also, is "allowing for" correct grammatically when it's followed by a sentence?

[Helaw]

Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined while the active clauses instead use the disparate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', thus allowing for member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

OOC: As a non-native English user, I suggest not using "disparate", as I at least had to look it up just now, despite having run into it before. Also, is "allowing for" correct grammatically when it's followed by a sentence?

OOC: I've changed 'disparate'. As for 'allowing for', I'd say that it is correct, but I am happy to change it also.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I would have drafted a repeal if you had not already got dibs. To be honest, this is certainly a disappointing resolution 400. You can easily make a cost argument on the fact that this resolution doesn't do anything which three other resolutions already do — the Universal Library Coalition already archives data, International Drug Education already promotes international medical knowledge, and the World Health Authority already promotes international cooperation on health affairs. Doing all those things all over again in a different organisation only wastes the WA funds.

[Helaw]

OOC: I would have drafted a repeal if you had not already got dibs. To be honest, this is certainly a disappointing resolution 400. You can easily make a cost argument on the fact that this resolution doesn't do anything which three other resolutions already do — the Universal Library Coalition already archives data, International Drug Education already promotes international medical knowledge, and the World Health Authority already promotes international cooperation on health affairs. Doing all those things all over again in a different organisation only wastes the WA funds.

It's a shame. Hopefully the 500th resolution will be slightly less fundamentally flawed. Thank you for pointing out those resolutions to me; I've updated the draft to include brief references to them. Is the way I have referenced them correct by GA standards?

This resolution has more holes than a spongecake, honestly. I hope to submit this repeal soon after it passes.

[Ransium]

I'm bound by regional agreement to vote for the proposal as a majority of the WA nations in Forest are voting for. However, I do agree the proposal has problems. Good luck with your repeal.

[Excidium Planetis]

It's a shame. Hopefully the 500th resolution will be slightly less fundamentally flawed. Thank you for pointing out those resolutions to me; I've updated the draft to include brief references to them. Is the way I have referenced them correct by GA standards?

"It is correct, but it might be better to be brief, if less informative, and use GA# whatever number it is, instead of listing the titles. It also makes it easier for readers to find the resolutions referenced."

[Helaw]

It's a shame. Hopefully the 500th resolution will be slightly less fundamentally flawed. Thank you for pointing out those resolutions to me; I've updated the draft to include brief references to them. Is the way I have referenced them correct by GA standards?

"It is correct, but it might be better to be brief, if less informative, and use GA# whatever number it is, instead of listing the titles. It also makes it easier for readers to find the resolutions referenced."

"Thank you. It has been amended."

[Helaw]

This has been submitted.

[Covenstone]

Is this what The World Assembly does? Passes things and then repeals them the next day?

[Araraukar]

Is this what The World Assembly does? Passes things and then repeals them the next day?

OOC: The people who don't care about the actual contents of the proposals like to be on the "winning side", which is called lemming effect - if the majority of votes is "for", such people are more likely to vote "for". Thus the superdelegates more or less control the votes.

As for why most things seem to pass even if they were repealed right after, I can only guess that the same people who vote without any care for the contents, feel like they're actively doing something when legislation passes. You also tend to see the realization of "Oh bugger, the thing I voted for actually had an effect on my nation's stats" in many of the (illegal) insta-repeal submissions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is this what The World Assembly does? Passes things and then repeals them the next day?

One probably ought consider that the WA resolution format only provides the FOR side for any resolution. It doesn't have any discussion or any debate. The preamble, title, and contents are it. Any resolution only receives treatment based on what the author writes, which is usually positive. It's so one-sided that if this were a thing in the real world, almost anything would get passed.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

I always just throw my vote on the loosing side if I don't care or can't be bothered to actually fully understand a proposal. Gets rid of the red circle, and it won't have much impact on the outcome.