OOC: Ack, no. Colons, not ellipses.
Advertisement
by Wrapper » Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:03 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:36 am
Wrapper wrote:OOC: Ack, no. Colons, not ellipses.
by Bears Armed Mission » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:25 am
by Stoskavanya » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:57 pm
by Bears Armed Mission » Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:48 am
Stoskavanya wrote:Under section 4, you use the term "traditional medicines" but you define "Alternative Medicines" at the beginning of the draft. Is this intentional?
by Bears Armed Mission » Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:03 am
by Christian Democrats » Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:03 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Whovian Tardisia » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:57 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:I apologize for not noticing this sooner, but I don't think the advertising ban is legal . . .
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:30 pm
Whovian Tardisia wrote:Care to elaborate?
by Christian Democrats » Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:10 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:44 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:12 am
Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;
Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;
by Bears Armed » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:22 am
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:As I posted on the proposal using the GenSec tool:Contradiction Rule: The ban on advertisements in Section 4 does not fall within any of the enumerated exceptions of Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression.
Respectfully, that seems an excessive reading of GA30. GA30's definition and mandate are:Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;
Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;
I would not read the resolution as covering advertising at all
by Kenmoria » Wed May 02, 2018 11:35 pm
by Bears Armed Mission » Thu May 03, 2018 9:50 am
Kenmoria wrote:"I would use either full stops or brackets after each number in the clause labelling, having both looks slightly odd."
by Floydrose » Sat May 05, 2018 10:13 pm
by East Apikai » Sat May 05, 2018 10:30 pm
by Zabaykalye » Sun May 06, 2018 1:25 am
by Kenmoria » Sun May 06, 2018 2:55 am
Zabaykalye wrote:We cannot see how clause 3 (e) "To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect" is to be enforced. Are aromatherapists, reiki practitioners, priests and providers of herbal tea to demand proof that a person is undergoing conventional treatment before offering their assistance? What if the person offering the traditional medicine is a friend or relative, or it is self-administered?
Due to this impracticality, and the invasion of personal freedom involved, Zabaykalye votes against.
by Discoveria » Sun May 06, 2018 4:14 am
by Brokemia » Sun May 06, 2018 4:24 am
by Belcrum » Sun May 06, 2018 4:53 am
(...)Defines the term ‘Traditional Medicine’, for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning any medication or other therapeutic technique that is used because of popular belief rather than scientific proof for its effectiveness
(e) To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect;
by Bears Armed Mission » Sun May 06, 2018 5:41 am
"That's fair enough. We considered the facts that using untested 'medicines' is potentially fatal and that 'Life' is a fundamental right sufficient grounds for this proposal, but can smell that others reasonably might disagree. Bear in mind, though, that this proposed resolution would work mainly at the "Strongly Urges" level and thus would leave it basically still up to the individual nations to decide how much they did in this respect: The only outright prohibitions involved are on 'medical' treatments that involve harm to endangered species or that violate the bodily autonomy of sapient beings..."Floydrose wrote:With deepest respect to the right-honourable Bears Armed Mission, we must respectfully disagree with the Traditional Medicine resolution.
While we understand the desire and the goodwill proposed by such a resolution, we of Skell in general and of Floydrose in particular feel this issue should be handled within the borders of each member nation, as that Nation / Region deems appropriate.
Were this issue to cross borders or in any other way have a possibility of infringing on another Nation / Region, then we feel it would merit World Assembly debate. However, we feel ultimately it is and should always be an individual nation's prerogative to regulate, etc. those issues which may be handled within their borders, thus allowing this august international body to handle matters which may affect all nations. We feel this matter does not warrant handling here and as such should be voted against.
"Under this proposed resolution's wording, deciding policy on such matters would still be within the individual nations' control. I would point out, however, firstly that anybody offering medical services of any kind without checking whether the potential patients are already receiving other treatments is behaving irresponsibly; and secondly that, cases of treatment being given to friends or relatives -- let alone cases where it is self-administered -- seem rrather unlikely to come to the local legal system's attention unless they actually do turn out to have harmful effects."Zabaykalye wrote:We cannot see how clause 3 (e) "To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect" is to be enforced. Are aromatherapists, reiki practitioners, priests and providers of herbal tea to demand proof that a person is undergoing conventional treatment before offering their assistance? What if the person offering the traditional medicine is a friend or relative, or it is self-administered?
"Please note the other replies that II have just made to critics: The fact that most of this proposed resolution's suggested actions are only "strongly urged" rather than outright "required" would neither require you to test those medicines immediately nor forbid you to allow their continued use anyhows, except in a verry limited number of cases. Also, you could get the new agency TMEA to help with that testing."Discoveria wrote:The cost of testing all traditional medicines, including those that are used very infrequently and in tiny patient populations, for efficacy and safety is an unproductive use of healthcare funds that could be spent on biomedical research to discover new effective therapies.
"For substances as common as that, TMEA could probably tell you very quickly whether they do have useful effects... and nothing in this proposal would bar you from continuing to allow their use (unless maybeso your 'tea' has rather unusual sources?), especially if they have potentially helpful placebo effects, anyhows."Brokemia wrote:My only problem with this is that I think the definition for “traditional medicine” is too vague. By my understanding of it, tea, which people use for medicinal reasons, would fall under this term.
"Please note my preceding remarks, pointing out how much this proposed resolution does leave to the separate nations."Belcrum wrote:*<snip>*
HOWEVER, people also have a right to treat themselves as they want, especially if the situation is grave, and there is no prospect for survival with general treatment.
*<snip>*
In developed countries, healthcare uses only approved and tested medicine. Placebo-effects included.This is a responsibility for sovereign nations themselves, and should not be forced on them by the World Assembly.(e) To ban likewise any traditional medication or other traditional medical theory that has been proven reasonably safe but whose effectiveness has not been proven, if a better alternative is available, unless it will be used only alongside that alternative (and can safely be thus used) — rather than in lieu of that alternative — for the possibility of a helpful placebo effect;
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement