[PASSED] Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[New Waldensia]

Language of the submitted proposal (10:45pm CST, 11-7-17):

Freedom to Seek Medical Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that some nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that some diseases, conditions, and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

The General Assembly hereby:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly,

3: Requires that member nations respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives,

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

5: Declares that patients seeking medical care or treatment under this act are financially responsible for any costs not compensated by existing laws in their home nation, and that such travel and payment must be arranged by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation,‎

6: States that member nations are not obligated to cover future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure,

7: Notes that member nations are not prohibited from assisting in defraying the financial cost associated with citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care under this measure.

Previous content:

As this will be struck down after the vote finishes (76.2% in favor, at the moment, for what it's worth), this thread will address re-drafting to correct the issues that brought about its downfall.

Version that passed the vote but was struck down:

Freedom to Seek Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that many nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders, when better treatment may be obtained elsewhere,

The General Assembly:

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting citizens and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense, 

SECTION 2: Urges member nations on both ends of the travel to expedite their legal processes for travel to medical patients, and in the case of dependents their guardians or caretakers as well, or to those who urgently request and demonstrate a need for medical care abroad.

SECTION 3: Prohibits member nations from discriminating in their travel policies against non-citizens solely for traveling to seek medical treatment.

SECTION 4: Urges member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

SECTION 5: Prohibits member nations from prosecuting citizens who seek medical treatments or operations abroad that are illegal or banned within their own borders but that have not been banned by the General Assembly, and requires that individuals who obtain such treatment be accepted back into their home nation without prejudice or any legal repercussions based on their medical treatment.‎

SECTION 6: Declares that the government of the patient's nation of origin is not obligated or financially responsible in any way for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.‎

SECTION 7: Clarifies that no nation is required to accept foreign medical patients under this measure.

Co-authored by United Massachusetts

[New Waldensia]

OOC: From my understanding of the legal challenge thread, the sticking point was Section 1 (Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting citizens and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense), which violated one or more previous resolutions addressing medical quarantines.

I hope to address that issue here swiftly, in order to get a quick turn-around for resubmission.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Before you resubmit, please address the issues I've raised prior to the original submission: [Long Form] [Short Form]

[Fauxia]

Quick note: Make an exception for the incarcerated, that it does not apply to them. Otherwise they can escape from jail this way

[New Waldensia]

I made changes in sections 1, 3, and 7, which seemed to be the areas people had issues with. Section 1 was the focus of the illegality ruling.

Freedom to Seek Care
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,‎

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that many nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that many rare diseases and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders, when better treatment may be obtained elsewhere,

The General Assembly:

SECTION 1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting citizens and their dependents from seeking healthcare in other nations at their own expense, so long as the individuals are not medically quarantined, incarcerated, or subjects of a criminal trial.

SECTION 2: Urges member nations on both ends of the travel to expedite their legal processes for travel to medical patients, and in the case of dependents their guardians or caretakers as well, or to those who urgently request and demonstrate a need for medical care abroad.

SECTION 3: Prohibits member nations from discriminating in their travel policies against non-citizens solely for traveling to seek medical treatment, with the exception that nations may set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance of patients with infectious diseases.

SECTION 4: Urges member nations to respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives.

SECTION 5: Prohibits member nations from prosecuting citizens who seek medical treatments or operations abroad that are illegal or banned within their own borders but that have not been banned by the General Assembly, and requires that individuals who obtain such treatment be accepted back into their home nation without prejudice or any legal repercussions based on their medical treatment.‎

SECTION 6: Declares that the government of the patient's nation of origin is not obligated or financially responsible in any way for transport or medical treatment sought abroad, and that such arrangements must be made by and financed by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation.‎

SECTION 7: Clarifies that no nation is required to accept foreign medical patients under this measure, and that foreign medical patients can be turned away for other reasons.

Co-authored by United Massachusetts

[Fauxia]

Looks good

[Araraukar]

I made changes in sections 1, 3, and 7, which seemed to be the areas people had issues with. Section 1 was the focus of the illegality ruling.

OOC: Once more, keep the most recent draft visible in the first post. Put old versions of the draft inside spoilers or move them (inside spoilers) to another post entirely.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: Once more, keep the most recent draft visible in the first post. Put old versions of the draft inside spoilers or move them (inside spoilers) to another post entirely.

OOC: done.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This still allows for the use of foreign treatments to bypass the laws of a Member-State, I understand you're trying to allow people from less-advanced Member-States to utilize the facilities and treatments available to more advanced states, but we do rather have to account for the inverse. It should not be acceptable to run off and give your kids lobotomies simply because it's being done in a foreign nation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: It's still missing the "if no effective treatment exists in their home nation". Which would fix Tinfect's concerns too.

[United Massachusetts]

Looks good to me

[States of Glory WA Office]

Looks good to me

Fairburn: That's what you said last time. Look how it turned out.

[Aclion]

OOC: It's still missing the "if no effective treatment exists in their home nation". Which would fix Tinfect's concerns too.

OOC: If no effective treatment is existant but unavailable? Or available but substandard?

[Araraukar]

OOC: If no effective treatment is existant but unavailable?

OOC: Fairly sure that at least if it's medications, the essential medications resolution requires making them available to all. If it's surgery or something like that, then I think a lot more nations would object to one nation outsourcing all their expensive problems.

Or available but substandard?

What do you mean with this?

[Aclion]

OOC: If no effective treatment is existent but unavailable?

OOC: Fairly sure that at least if it's medications, the essential medications resolution requires making them available to all. If it's surgery or something like that, then I think a lot more nations would object to one nation outsourcing all their expensive problems.

I don't see any reason for them to object, since they have every right to refuse to accept them. That said, #124 is very broad and can be interpreted to include all medical care.

Or available but substandard?

What do you mean with this?

For example; when the resources to to perform a live saving surgery are available but waiting times exceed the time the patent is projected to live.

[New Waldensia]

OOC: If no effective treatment is existant but unavailable?

OOC: Fairly sure that at least if it's medications, the essential medications resolution requires making them available to all. If it's surgery or something like that, then I think a lot more nations would object to one nation outsourcing all their expensive problems.

1. This proposal states that the patients are seeking care "at their own expense". The financial burden is on them, not the government(s).
2. 70+% voted for the original language, so I don't think there were a lot of objections to it.

For example; when the resources to to perform a live saving surgery are available but waiting times exceed the time the patent is projected to live.

This is a primary motivation for the proposal.

[Araraukar]

This is a primary motivation for the proposal.

OOC: Perhaps it needs to be spelled out a bit better, then.

[Aclion]

This is a primary motivation for the proposal.

This is true.

This is a primary motivation for the proposal.

OOC: Perhaps it needs to be spelled out a bit better, then.

OOC: I think the issue is a fundamental objection to the goal of the proposal, namely that citizens may not be prevented from using a health service that's not under the jurisdiction of their government. But that's not a flaw, that is the intent. It might be possible to rewrite it to prevent patents from going abroad to receive sub-par care when adequate care is available in their own country but that opens up a new can of worms, namely how do we decide what care is sub-par and how inefficient does the domestic system have to be before treatment is considered unavailable? As far as I'm concerned the risk of patents seeking out poor healthcare isn't significant enough to create a risk of nations engaging in protectionism for their healthcare industry at the expense of patent health.

[Tinfect]

I think the issue is a fundamental objection to the goal of the proposal, namely that citizens may not be prevented from using a health service that's not under the jurisdiction of their government.

OOC:
That's not true, not even from an IC perspective. The Imperium merely has an interest in closing a massive, gaping flaw in legislation that is otherwise inoffensive. Civil Oversight, which Feren represents, is concerned here primarily with saving Imperial lives, and ensuring the Rule of Law.

It might be possible to rewrite it to prevent patents from going abroad to receive sub-par care when adequate care is available in their own country

It is entirely possible, and trivial, as Araraukar noted earlier.

but that opens up a new can of worms, namely how do we decide what care is sub-par and how inefficient does the domestic system have to be before treatment is considered unavailable?

That's pretty straightforward; if effective treatment is not reasonably accessible to the individual seeking it within their nation.

As far as I'm concerned the risk of patents seeking out poor healthcare isn't significant enough to create a risk of nations engaging in protectionism for their healthcare industry at the expense of patent health.

Given that here in reality we have people refusing actual medical treatment for their kids in favor of prayer rallies and miracle diets, it is an entirely legitimate concern. It's not economic protectionism, its about keeping people alive.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Given that here in reality we have people refusing actual medical treatment for their kids in favor of prayer rallies and miracle diets, it is an entirely legitimate concern. It's not economic protectionism, its about keeping people alive.

OOC: ^What she said.

[New Waldensia]

Given that here in reality we have people refusing actual medical treatment for their kids in favor of prayer rallies and miracle diets, it is an entirely legitimate concern. It's not economic protectionism, its about keeping people alive.

I believe your concerns are addressed in WAR222.


Are there any objections to the current draft language on legal grounds?

[Fauxia]

Given that here in reality we have people refusing actual medical treatment for their kids in favor of prayer rallies and miracle diets, it is an entirely legitimate concern. It's not economic protectionism, its about keeping people alive.

I believe your concerns are addressed in WAR222.


Are there any objections to the current draft language on legal grounds?

"They may not tell you unless you change it to their concerns."

[Tinfect]

I believe your concerns are addressed in WAR222.

OOC:
Hardly; that legislation only applies within Member-States, and this legislation would allow people to go to any foreign state, even non-members, which, of course, are not bound by resolution 222.

Are there any objections to the current draft language on legal grounds?

I do, actually. This legislation is in obvious violation of Resolution 222, as it prevents Member-States from effectively criminalizing, investigating, and preventing child abuse as defined with in Resolution 222, as well as directly prohibiting them from ensuring that children are not transported to non-member states for the purpose of dodging the mandates of that resolution.

[Aclion]

I do, actually. This legislation is in obvious violation of Resolution 222, as it prevents Member-States from effectively criminalizing, investigating, and preventing child abuse as defined with in Resolution 222, as well as directly prohibiting them from ensuring that children are not transported to non-member states for the purpose of dodging the mandates of that resolution.

Prohibits member nations from prosecuting citizens who seek medical treatments or operations abroad that are illegal or banned within their own borders but that have not been banned by the General Assembly

Child abuse is illegal under #222 and as such transportation to another country(WA member or not) for the purpose of child abuse is not protected by section 5.

[Tinfect]

Child abuse is illegal under #222 and as such transportation to another country(WA member or not) is not protected by section 5.

OOC:
That clause applies specifically to medical treatments, try again.