Youssath wrote:Morover wrote:"Ambassador, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on hallucinogens from a medical perspective - but please enlighten me on a use of hallucinogens (as defined by this proposal) which will be directly beneficial to an already incapacitated patient. If you can come up with a legitimate gripe, I'll change it."
(OOC: I'm still not convinced of your ketamine argument - it just doesn't fall under the classification of hallucinogen as defined by this proposal.)
"Here's the thing, ambassador. The terminology "hallucinogens" is used to classify, on your own terms, a drug (medical or not) that induces a hallucinogenic effect on the individual. It does not state the purpose of why the hallucinogen is used. Any drugs that can induce any hallucinogenic-like symptoms is considered a hallucinogen based on your own interpretations, regardless of the purpose of why that drug is used in the first place. Ketamine is considered as a hallucinogen because it is used for recreational purposes to get "high" after clubbing (which is true), and its symptoms of double vision, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, nausea and vomiting all fit the criteria of the consumption of hallucinogens in general. Even though it is also used extensively in medical procedures, it is still classified as a hallucinogen because there are people who still use it recreationally to get some "high" like other hallucinogens out there. Hence, ketamine produces the same outcome as that other hallucinogens and can be classified as a hallucinogen, although used similarly for medical purposes."
"Furthermore, as I have stated before, the lack thereof of consent by an already incapacitated patient does not imply affirmative response at all (no response doesn't mean you have their consent). Combined with the fact that ketamine is a hallucinogen, which is expressly classified under Article One of your proposal (even though you do not recognize ketamine to be a hallucinogen, but your resolution states so), and it will be difficult to administer proper medical procedures towards the patient without violating this resolution here."
"I would like to remind you that there is a difference between the literal interpretation of hallucinogens and the actual usage of them. It seems to me that you hold a negative view on the word of "hallucinogens", thinking that they are all used to get high and for recreational purposes when clearly, it can also be used to describe beneficial drugs that produce hallucinogenic-like effects as a side effect of the drug."
“I believe a rather key aspect of the definition is going unnoticed here: ‘intended to’. The requirement is that a substance must have an intended effect of a hallucinogenic nature, for example in recreational usage. When ketamine is used in a medical setting, the intent is most likely not for the doctors to cause sensory hallucinations, rather it is to provide anaesthesia and relief from pain.
Perhaps it could be clarified in the proposal by putting in ‘primarily intended to’ or possibly ‘exclusively intended to’, but I don’t think there is truly a need for this. In addition, even with the assumption that both of our interpretations are correct, a member nation would most likely still opt to legislate in line with mine, as it is less burdensome. Where there are two equally valid ways of interpreting a resolution, member states normally choose the one requiring the least legislation.”
