Advertisement
by Denathor » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:15 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:44 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Morover » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:14 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:49 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Morover » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:56 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: The bit about additional sedatives during a surgery, the wording "neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached" sounds odd, given that the patient is right there on the operating table, they're just conked out by sedatives (hopefully!). Maybe "neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin can be reached to acquire their consent". It doesn't sound like a big change, but "able to" isn't quite true as technically they could un-sedate the person (as in, they have the ability to), but as that's seriously a bad idea mid-operation, the "can" takes into consideration the circumstances as well. And the rest of it emphasizes the consent bit.
by Verdant Haven » Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:06 pm
by Morover » Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:08 pm
Verdant Haven wrote:I am still concerned about this for the same reason I mentioned before - medical use of medications when no consent can be obtained. Paramedics and other first responders, as well as many fully-qualified members of the medical staff at intake to a hospital, are not "surgeons" and are not performing "operations." When we come down to it, anesthesiologists are not "surgeons" either, and would be prohibited from performing their duties in many circumstances. There needs to be blanket language protecting all medical staff working in their professional capacity, or else this will have wide-ranging fatal side-effects.
This proposal continues to prohibit both basic and advanced emergent medical care. This may be inadvertent, but it is extremely explicit, and I can not in good conscience support it due to these mistakes. The definitions are insufficiently precise, or else, are incorrectly precise in a manner that is crippling.
by Polis Diamonil » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:07 am
Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated.
by Waffia » Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:03 am
Polis Diamonil wrote:Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects.
Polis Diamonil wrote:What prevents the mandated suppression of natural substances not considered a biological part of any sapient which could lead to involuntary sedation of residents from mandating the destruction of bio-engineered pets or lawful pharmacological cultivations reliant on concentration of sedatives in thorns or other forms of potential contact-sedation should they be touched by the unwary?
by Kenmoria » Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:09 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:56 am
Polis Diamonil wrote:Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects:Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated.
by Marxist Germany » Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:00 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Seeing as this is at vote, I will declare the Kenmoria WA Mission’s vote in favour of this proposal. It is a very sensible addition to the growing body of law protecting the citizens of the World Assembly.”
by Morover » Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:26 am
Polis Diamonil wrote:What if someday there's a horrible disease whose cure is incidentally hallucinogenic? At risk of revealing a failure to grasp medical impossibility, this is our gravest objection.
What if someday there's some extraordinarily effective criminal or psychological rehabilitation technique relying on a compound with hallucinogenic effects? This is a more serious objection; although less severe in extreme, it is a much more probable occurrence.
This resolution could impair scientific progress with very little gain in safety for nations with strong public order that have also sought to advance the scientific understanding of mind-affecting substances.
(Amended; further argumentation appended to the record as follows.)
Furthermore, this requirement could literally require WA-mandated burning of natural environments if there are animals or plants which have sedating effects:Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated.
Further amendments based upon review of the present history of argumentation on this subject have stricken the original complaint registered by Polis Diamonil, which is the spoilered content above, but have retained the appended argument regarding natural pharmacopeia. The complaint regarding potential disease cures was already addressed by national representatives pointing out that the resolution defines hallucinogen in a manner adequately limited as to prevent the inadvertent criminalization of legitimate medical necessities, for which Polis Diamonil wishes to register its gratitude. However, the suppression of sources of natural sedation could still impair environmental and medical research directly in areas of heightened biochemical interest.
A further argument taking into account bioscientific potentials is appended as follows:
What prevents the mandated suppression of natural substances not considered a biological part of any sapient which could lead to involuntary sedation of residents from mandating the destruction of bio-engineered pets or lawful pharmacological cultivations reliant on concentration of sedatives in thorns or other forms of potential contact-sedation should they be touched by the unwary?
by Polis Diamonil » Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:32 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:53 am
Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,
Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement, military, or medical personnel,
Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner
Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,
by Verdant Haven » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:07 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,
Clumsy language here, taking into no account best interests, capacity to consent, or age of majority. A baby is not incapacitated, but does lack capacity to consent.
Also problematic here is the explicit handing over of right to consent to next-of-kin.
This is frankly, extremely dangerous legal nonsense.
No reasonable jurisdiction with respect for bodily autonomy should allow a patient's next-of-kin to offer consent on their behalf unless that next of kin is named as having power of attorney over medical decisions, or has parental responsibility over a patient who is a minor without Gillick competence.Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement, military, or medical personnel,
No.
Medical personnel, sure. But a legal framework that suggests it is acceptable for law enforcement to sedate someone they deem troublesome, or worse for the military to assauly its own nation's citizens is nothing short of dystopian.
While we are aware that there are nations out there that engage in such anti-democratic actions, we do not expect the WA to be promoting such values.Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner
Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,
No.
The decision whether or not a substance should be legal or illegal is up to that of sovereign nations to decide, dependent on how liberal or not they are with regards to recreational and medicinal drugs.
Magic mushrooms could be used to spike someone's cupcake mix, and involuntarily sedate them. But in some nations, its permissible to take magic mushrooms.
Too extreme for you?
Alcohol has a sedative side effect, and could be added to someone's soft drink without them being aware. Does that mean alcohol should be banned?
Addressing involuntary administration of substances by banning the substance is not an evidence-based effective policy approach, and the GA should not be encouraging that approach.
by Araraukar » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:35 pm
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Again, the next of kin should not have the right to consent to an operation or to the administering of medical treatment.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:41 pm
PRA wrote:Patients have the right to be involved in decisions concerning their care...
"patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority[] or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act. (unnecessary comma before 'or' omitted)
by Firelia » Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:31 am
Article One
Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,
by Kenmoria » Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:41 am
Firelia wrote:
Article One
Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,
This is a fail, what happens when a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended?, remember the case of viagra, it wasn't mean to do what it's used for, it doesn't even treat the main reason people buy it for as the main effect, bus as secondary effect, if you include "intention" as part of the deffinition, then you are not including all real hallucinogenic drugs, that means that if a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended I can do whatever this law prohibits me to do, so I say no, it must be corrected
by American Pere Housh » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:58 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:00 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:01 am
Kenmoria wrote:Firelia wrote:This is a fail, what happens when a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended?, remember the case of viagra, it wasn't mean to do what it's used for, it doesn't even treat the main reason people buy it for as the main effect, bus as secondary effect, if you include "intention" as part of the deffinition, then you are not including all real hallucinogenic drugs, that means that if a drug have hallucinogenic effects but it wasn't intended I can do whatever this law prohibits me to do, so I say no, it must be corrected
(OOC: It was intentional so as to not apply these regulations to benign substances that happen to have hallucinogenic side effects, such as alcohol. This means that only drugs which have no purpose other than to cause hallucinations, or ones whose other purposes are inconsequential such that being hallucinogenic are what everyone knows them for, are affected by this resolution.)
by Marxist Germany » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:41 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: There already exists a resolution that gives them that right in some cases at least. This one couldn't contradict that one.
Please can you give a more specific citation?
Regardless, if one resolution gives explicit permission to give the next of kin the right to consent to a specific treatment, you would expect that to over-rule a general prohibition against doing so for treatments in general. In contradictory legislation, specific trumps general.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement