[PASSED] Public Health and Vaccinations Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

 

Public Health and Vaccinations Act
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare

---

Whereas it is an important matter of public health that persons be protected from the scourge of disease that may painfully kill, maim, paralyse, or cause harm of some manner or another:

And whereas the right to believe empirically incorrect information does not extend to harming others:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by this august and most excellent World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

1. Member nations shall require that all persons be vaccinated, given safe administration and evaluation of opportunity costs thereof, in a timely manner against any disease
   
   1. to which the general public may reasonably be exposed and
   2. is sufficiently infectious and virulent so as to threaten public health.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1, members will grant exceptions given
   force majeure, provision of which shall be retrospective, or a valid medical reason to exempt.
   
   
3. Member nations and their governmental subdivisions shall not make transfer payments or provide inessential services, except where otherwise required by World Assembly law, to persons or the parents of minors who refuse to comply with the first and second sections of this Act.
   
   
4. Members are permitted to pass further legislation to limit the spread of disease by unvaccinated persons, including but not limited to restrictions on school enrolment or provision of medical quarantine on travellers.
   
   
5. Point of service costs for vaccines administered under section 1 shall not exceed minimal expense. Such vaccines shall not be altered to produce effects outside the scope of inoculation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Procedural bullshit

1. Yea, yea, yea, Wallenburg, Araraukar, et al. will complain about the fact that I don't draft on these forums. I don't care. And I will express exactly how much I don't care by outvoting them.
   
   Even if one made the argument that one should care, it is not the obligation of any author to circulate drafts to the 'GA regulars' simply to feed their self-importance. And similarly, I have made it clear many times that I have an extremely low opinion of the utility of responses on this forum. Discussions and responses here in this thread have done very little to shift that opinion.
   
   Of course, feedback and suggestions is why this draft was circulated for some three months to various 'GA regulars' (some of which are no longer all that active, but still very helpful!). These complaints are quite obviously really about not having been looped in. I don't have any response to that other than 'tough'.
   
   
2. Since this was submitted around the same time another draft on this exact topic was being worked upon, I should disclose that this has been drafted since 29 June. It was disclosed to a number of friends 13 July. It was posted to the World Assembly Legislative League drafting sub-forum 19 July. It was then posted to Europeia's Vinage drafting centre 3 October, from which the submitted version was sourced.

Do vaccines cause autism?
No, they don't. There is no replicable evidence supporting that there exists a connection between vaccines and autism. A very short Google search turns up the following. The CDCs there is no connection. Autism Speaks, an ASD support and advocacy group, says there is no connection. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia says there is no connection.

A study in the Journal of P[a]ediatrics says there is no connection. If you read the conclusion, you will find the statement:

We found no evidence indicating an association between ex- posure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides contained in vaccines during the first 2 years of life and the risk of acquiring ASD, AD, or ASD with regression.

We also detected no associations when exposures were evaluated as cumulative exposure from birth to 3 months, from birth to 7 months, or from birth to 2 years, or as maximum exposure on a single day during those 3 time periods. These results in- dicate that parental concerns that their children are receiving too many vaccines in the first 2 years of life or too many vac- cines at a single doctor visit are not supported in terms of an increased risk of autism.

And if you want to dive into the methodology, then look on the Methods section, page 1, left column, paragraphs 2 and 3, which state that the case and control sets were selected to divide between baseline and potential ASD persons, which is why there is a deviation in the per cent noted in the first two paragraphs of the Results section. If you keep reading in the results section,

In the regression models, the risk of acquiring an ASD was not associated with total antigen exposure at birth to 3 months, birth to 7 months, or birth to 2 years (Table II). In the analyses with exposure categorized at 3 levels, the ORs all had 95% CIs that overlapped 1.0 (ie, were not statistically significant).

[Wallenburg]

Procedural bullshit
(1) Yea, yea, yea, Wally et al. will complain about the fact that I don't draft on these forums. I don't care. And I will express exactly how much I care by outvoting them.

Consider this my complaint, then, as well as my statement of opposition.

(2) This has been drafted since 29 June. It was disclosed to a number of friends 13 July. It was posted to the World Assembly Legislative League drafting sub-forum 19 July. It was then posted to Europeia's Vinage drafting centre 3 October.

Irrelevant. That you didn't even bother to copy-paste this properly, even when submitting it, indicates that you not only don't give a damn about this community, but also that you don't give a damn about correctly submitting what you yourself wrote, draft or not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

you not only don't give a damn about this community, but also that you don't give a damn about correctly submitting what you yourself wrote, draft or not.

I'll say it here. You are not this community.

[Wallenburg]

you not only don't give a damn about this community, but also that you don't give a damn about correctly submitting what you yourself wrote, draft or not.

I'll say it here. You are not this community.

In other news, this proposal is missing several lines.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In other news, this proposal is missing several lines.

In other news, this proposal has been revised since its last public posting.

[Wallenburg]

In other news, this proposal is missing several lines.

In other news, this proposal has been revised since its last public posting.

Let's add that as another reason to draft in the GA.

[Araraukar]

I'll say it here. You are not this community.

OOC: Neither are you, though you act as if you are.

[Jarish Inyo]

Opposed. We will not force our citizens to undergo any medical procedure that they do not wish to undertake.

[United Massachusetts]

I do believe you have a typo "enrolment"

[Allied Sapients]

I do believe you have a typo "enrolment"

OOC: It's British spelling, I believe.

[Deropia]

I do believe you have a typo "enrolment"

OOC: It's British spelling, I believe.

OOC: That's correct.

[United Massachusetts]

I do believe you have a typo "enrolment"

OOC: It's British spelling, I believe.

Those Brits, and their silly customs.

[Imperium Anglorum]

English spelling is nothing to laugh at.

[United Massachusetts]

English spelling is nothing to laugh at.

Haha. English spelling! Haha!


Anyways, nice proposal. Plan on voting for.

[Cekoviu]

Opposed. We will not force our citizens to undergo any medical procedure that they do not wish to undertake.

And yet you force your citizens to serve in the military? Smells of hypocrisy.
I oppose this act, as while vaccinations are crucial to health, it should be up to the individual countries to decide whether they want their citizens to periodically undergo mass extinctions.

[Tarsonis]

It always amuses me when the WA, which pats itself on the back all too often over its "advancement of civil rights," unironically proposes the egregious violations of the civil rights it pretends to revere. I guess "bodily sovereignty" isn't as sacrosanct as we held it to be now is it?

[Essu Beti]

((OOC: Preventing epidemics via a simple procedure that causes no more than temporary discomfort is hardly an egregious civil rights violation.))

IC: "Wow, way to submit this without getting feedback," grumbles Iksana. "I don't see anything in here about how, exactly, a piss-poor third world country like my own is going to afford all of this. I mean, it's not like we're crawling in manufacturing plants, and we certainly don't have the money to import them. Unless you plan to personally trek right on over and provide all of the vaccines we'll need free of cost?"

[Tarsonis]

((OOC: Preventing epidemics via a simple procedure that causes no more than temporary discomfort is hardly an egregious civil rights violation.))

IC: "Wow, way to submit this without getting feedback," grumbles Iksana. "I don't see anything in here about how, exactly, a piss-poor third world country like my own is going to afford all of this. I mean, it's not like we're crawling in manufacturing plants, and we certainly don't have the money to import them. Unless you plan to personally trek right on over and provide all of the vaccines we'll need free of cost?"

OOC: It doesn't matter, being forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, no matter how minute is battery. Forcing people to undergo any medical procedure is unethical, even if you think it's for the "greater good."

[Cekoviu]

((OOC: Preventing epidemics via a simple procedure that causes no more than temporary discomfort is hardly an egregious civil rights violation.))

IC: "Wow, way to submit this without getting feedback," grumbles Iksana. "I don't see anything in here about how, exactly, a piss-poor third world country like my own is going to afford all of this. I mean, it's not like we're crawling in manufacturing plants, and we certainly don't have the money to import them. Unless you plan to personally trek right on over and provide all of the vaccines we'll need free of cost?"

OOC: It doesn't matter, being forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, no matter how minute is battery. Forcing people to undergo any medical procedure is unethical, even if you think it's for the "greater good."

The problem is that if they don't undergo that medical procedure, they may be forcing another person to become very sick.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

"Opposed. We don't know what a vaccination is and quite rankly it sounds like black magic. Black magic is illegal in Dragonslund on pain of death...like....well like most other things that are illegal." Ser Aegon Snow says.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

((OOC: Preventing epidemics via a simple procedure that causes no more than temporary discomfort is hardly an egregious civil rights violation.))

IC: "Wow, way to submit this without getting feedback," grumbles Iksana. "I don't see anything in here about how, exactly, a piss-poor third world country like my own is going to afford all of this. I mean, it's not like we're crawling in manufacturing plants, and we certainly don't have the money to import them. Unless you plan to personally trek right on over and provide all of the vaccines we'll need free of cost?"

OOC: It doesn't matter, being forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, no matter how minute is battery. Forcing people to undergo any medical procedure is unethical, even if you think it's for the "greater good."

In an OOC sense I agree with Tarsonis on this.

[Tarsonis]

OOC: It doesn't matter, being forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, no matter how minute is battery. Forcing people to undergo any medical procedure is unethical, even if you think it's for the "greater good."

The problem is that if they don't undergo that medical procedure, they may be forcing another person to become very sick.

No, the disease they carry is forcing that person to become sick, they aren't doing anything besides being involuntary carriers of said disease. This medical treatment could prevent/cure the disease they carry, but they have a right to reject medical treatment. You cannot ethically force people to receive vaccinations without violating their civil rights to refuse medical treatment and their right to bodily sovereignty. These protections protect us as individuals against all forms of medical battery, not just vaccination.

[Discoveria]

1. Member nations shall require that all persons be vaccinated, given safe administration and evaluation of opportunity costs thereof, in a timely manner against any disease
   
   1. to which the general public may reasonably be exposed and
   2. is sufficiently infectious and virulent so as to threaten public health.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1, members will grant exceptions given
   force majeure, provision of which shall be retrospective, or a valid medical reason to exempt.

Is withholding consent a valid medical reason to exempt? I think if you spoke to medical professionals they would tell you that even if there is a very compelling health reason to vaccinate, patients generally have near-absolute rights to refuse treatment if they understand the consequences and are capable of exercising their autonomy. The reasons given to override this basic principle of medical ethics aren't strong enough to carry this proposal, IMHO.

[Felix Dote]

5. Point of service costs for vaccines administered under section 1 shall not exceed minimal expense. Such vaccines shall not be altered to produce effects outside the scope of inoculation.

Could I ask the fellow member of Imperium Anglorum to expand upon clause 5? What I mean is, could he describe what this clause entails? The second part of the clause is clear, but a google search doesn't exactly give much detail as to what Point of Service costs for vaccines is, or means. I interpret it to mean the actual cost of administering the vaccine and such that is charged to the patient, but is it something more, or simply that?