[PASSED] Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[The Hooved]

I wish that the resolution did aim to punish anti-choice nations. Unfortunately it does not.

The good news is that unless you have an agenda to prevent humans from obtaining important healthcare, there is no reason to oppose this resolution.

This resolution would clearly allow access to abortion if it were deemed medically necessary, the question is who determines whether the procedure is medically necessary. Whilst I'm sure all of us would agree that there are cases in which it is, our medical experts would differ wildly from the opinions of medical experts in other delegate nations.

Unless the resolution is amended to specifically restrict access to such... interventions, the Confederacy maintains our position that this is a gross violation of national conscience and should be rejected by any nations which value their sovereignty or the sanctity of their unborn citizens.

[Fauxia]

I wish that the resolution did aim to punish anti-choice nations. Unfortunately it does not.

The good news is that unless you have an agenda to prevent humans from obtaining important healthcare, there is no reason to oppose this resolution.

This resolution would clearly allow access to abortion if it were deemed medically necessary, the question is who determines whether the procedure is medically necessary. Whilst I'm sure all of us would agree that there are cases in which it is, our medical experts would differ wildly from the opinions of medical experts in other delegate nations.

Unless the resolution is amended to specifically restrict access to such... interventions, the Confederacy maintains our position that this is a gross violation of national conscience and should be rejected by any nations which value their sovereignty or the sanctity of their unborn citizens.

OOC:

Nations always bend the rules, so they can define what is medically necessary. Furthermore, why is abortion really relevant with GA 286 in place?

[Kepheus]

If I understand correctly under GA #97 section 1 subsection c, nations are already required to cooperate to ensure quality medical care for their citizens. Wouldn't this mean that if a procedure was unavailable in your nation that you would already be mandated to not only allow but assist your citizens in getting care beyond your borders? If that is indeed the case, then it seems to me that this new initiative would only remove the responsibility of determining what procedures are best from the government and put that responsibility on the individual. The question then becomes does the government have a responsibility to protect the citizenry from beliefs that aren't based on science. As an example should a nation be able to stop it's dogmatic members from seeking unproven procedures by crossing the border?

[Fauxia]

If I understand correctly under GA #97 section 1 subsection c, nations are already required to cooperate to ensure quality medical care for their citizens. Wouldn't this mean that if a procedure was unavailable in your nation that you would already be mandated to not only allow but assist your citizens in getting care beyond your borders? If that is indeed the case, then it seems to me that this new initiative would only remove the responsibility of determining what procedures are best from the government and put that responsibility on the individual. The question then becomes does the government have a responsibility to protect the citizenry from beliefs that aren't based on science. As an example should a nation be able to stop it's dogmatic members from seeking unproven procedures by crossing the border?

The foreign nation wouldn’t have to cooperate even if your interpretation is right, they aren’t a citizen

[Kepheus]

While the foreign nation wouldn't have to cooperate, some no doubt will cooperate. Then, after seeking procedures that were not allowed in the nation of origin this proposal would force that nation to care for the individual upon return regardless of damage done elsewhere.

[Little Tralfamadore]

he good news is that unless you have an agenda to prevent humans from obtaining important healthcare, there is no reason to oppose this resolution.

There is plenty of reason to oppose this resolution.

1 major one is that this would allow parents or anyone with medical control over another to dictate how they should be treated instead of science or reason.

A child has a disease that can be cured. Her parents think she is only sick because she has offended Violet. They take her for a priest who can cure her.
Someone thinks an exorcist can cure their loved one.
Something thinks a long term batter of various procedures which amount to torture can cure their child. No intelligent person in their home country allows such a procedure. So they take him to another country where the torture will be just fine.
And so on and so on.
Heck this could be abused even far far worse than what I've listed. Some quack/cult leader says that sex with him will cure their child. Your home country won't allow it? No problem, use this resolution to drag your kid to their doom.

Any law similar to this one needs to be able to be overridden when it the "medical" care is for someone other than oneself.

[Flying Eagles]

If you were unable to make your decisions regarding your healthcare, decision making power is transferred to your 'Next of Kin" in an order outlined by government. In the United States of America as an example, this is the order:
Spouse
Children (normally starting with eldest legal offspring)
Parents
Siblings
Grandchildren
Grandparents
Nieces/Nephews
Aunts/Uncles
Great Grandchildren
Great Grandparents
Great Nieces/Great Nephews
First Cousins
Great Aunts/Great Uncles
Great-Great Grandchildren
Great-Great Grandparents
Great-Great Nieces/Great-Great Nephews
First Cousins Once Removed (the children of First Cousins and descendants of Grandparents)
First Cousins Once Removed (the descendants of Great-Grandparents)
Great-Great Aunts/Great-Great Uncles
Great-Great-Great Grandchildren
Great-Great-Great Grandparents
Great-Great-Great Nieces/Great-Great-Great Nephews
First Cousins Twice Removed (the descendants of Grandparents)
Second Cousins
First Cousins Twice Removed (the descendant of Great-Great Grandparents)
Great-Great-Great Aunts/Great-Great-Great Uncles
Great-Great-Great-Great Grandchildren
Great-Great-Great-Great Grandparents
This order will apply regardless of the existence of this resolution
On another note, I hate when newly passed resolutions are repealed in like 2 weeks sometimes (and I feel like this'll happen with this resolution). I would support a change in game mechanics that would, as an example, prevent GA resolutions from being repealed for 3 months after their passing, SC for a month (and even auto-repeal Liberations after a month).

[Palsada]

On another note, I hate when newly passed resolutions are repealed in like 2 weeks sometimes (and I feel like this'll happen with this resolution). I would support a change in game mechanics that would, as an example, prevent GA resolutions from being repealed for 3 months after their passing, SC for a month (and even auto-repeal Liberations after a month).

I feel that with 63 percent of individual WA nations voting for this resolution, that it may be safe from any delegate lead repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

On another note, I hate when newly passed resolutions are repealed in like 2 weeks sometimes (and I feel like this'll happen with this resolution). I would support a change in game mechanics that would, as an example, prevent GA resolutions from being repealed for 3 months after their passing, SC for a month (and even auto-repeal Liberations after a month).

I feel that with 63 percent of individual WA nations voting for this resolution, that it may be safe from any delegate lead repeal.

Neither of these responses make any sense. There is a fundamental structural bias in the nature of the General Assembly's voting in that it will always support action over inaction, because only the affirmative side's arguments are presented in any vote. The negative side's arguments are generally not presented in an accessible format (except with a WA-wide campaign, which costs at least 20 dollars), both in telegram campaigns and in the text of the resolution itself.

Most voters do not spend time to determine the implications of the legislation: they vote based on the title, perhaps a skimming of the resolution, and an intuitive sense of what feels right. That is, prima facie, not a proper way to make policy: spending so little time on anything so to ignore unintended consequences of actions. The only way we even have a WA-wide debate is by having immediate presentation of the counter-arguments to the Assembly, simply because a debate requires both the affirmative and negative sides to participate and for those arguments to be heard at large. Debate in this forum does not satisfy the latter condition. When that debate actually happens, many of the resolutions passed by the Assembly are repealed by new arguments presented to the public.

Regional attempts, beyond those involving the forum itself, to correct these problems with the dissemination of Information for voters and other documents via agencies like TNP's WA ministry, Europeia's WA ministry, Europe's WA Office, etc. have limited effect when that will only reach a small number of voters compared to the thousands which do not receive and cannot find both sides of the argument. Restricting the ability to repeal legislation would only exacerbate the structural bias towards the affirmative side in any vote and make it significantly harder to present counter-arguments in a timely and relevant manner.

[Flying Eagles]

On another note, I hate when newly passed resolutions are repealed in like 2 weeks sometimes (and I feel like this'll happen with this resolution). I would support a change in game mechanics that would, as an example, prevent GA resolutions from being repealed for 3 months after their passing, SC for a month (and even auto-repeal Liberations after a month).

I feel that with 63 percent of individual WA nations voting for this resolution, that it may be safe from any delegate lead repeal.

Neither of these responses make any sense. There is a fundamental structural bias in the nature of the General Assembly's voting in that it will always support action over inaction, because only the affirmative side's arguments are presented in any vote. The negative side's arguments are generally not presented in an accessible format (except with a WA-wide campaign, which costs at least 20 dollars), both in telegram campaigns and in the text of the resolution itself.

Most voters do not spend time to determine the implications of the legislation: they vote based on the title, perhaps a skimming of the resolution, and an intuitive sense of what feels right. That is, prima facie, not a proper way to make policy: spending so little time on anything so to ignore unintended consequences of actions. The only way we even have a WA-wide debate is by having immediate presentation of the counter-arguments to the Assembly, simply because a debate requires both the affirmative and negative sides to participate and for those arguments to be heard at large. Debate in this forum does not satisfy the latter condition. When that debate actually happens, many of the resolutions passed by the Assembly are repealed by new arguments presented to the public.

Regional attempts, beyond those involving the forum itself, to correct these problems with the dissemination of Information for voters and other documents via agencies like TNP's WA ministry, Europeia's WA ministry, Europe's WA Office, etc. have limited effect when that will only reach a small number of voters compared to the thousands which do receive and cannot find both sides of the argument. Restricting the ability to repeal legislation would only exacerbate the structural bias towards the affirmative side in any vote and make it significantly harder to present counter-arguments in a timely and relevant manner.

That seems like a reasonable explanation as to why half of the resolutions are repealed

[Abhichandra]

Freedom to Seek Medical Care was passed 9,643 votes to 7,425.

OOC: This was a really close vote, with 56.5% in favor and 43.5% against.

[Principality of the Raix]

There's already a thread to repeal it, so we shall see... how it goes.

[NeoOasis]

There's already a thread to repeal it, so we shall see... how it goes.

That thread has been up since before this resolution passed.

[Principality of the Raix]

There's already a thread to repeal it, so we shall see... how it goes.

That thread has been up since before this resolution passed.

However, it did not have the backing that it does now.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: This was a really close vote, with 56.5% in favor and 43.5% against.

There have been closer votes.

[NeoOasis]

And there appear to be 2 other repeal proposals out there... one of which is currently in vote. Talk about a quick turn around time. Barely any time to debate and polish anything.