[CHALLENGE] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Proposal thread. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=492367
Proposal as submitted expired and is currently at vote.
Proposal as archived. http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/gorundu_1602225448/

The World Assembly,

Recognising the efforts made in GA #472, Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc to prevent unnecessary sterilisation of minors;

Asserting that the purpose of independent review can be achieved with individual qualified medical professionals;

Concerned that Institutional Review Boards, as defined by GA#111, are bureaucratic institutions that are not required to be staffed with medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such institutions;

Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;

Further alarmed that clause two allows the World Assembly Compliance Commission (WACC) to create further regulations on behalf of the World Assembly, without needing to consult the will of the combined member nations;

Convinced that this Assembly should not pass legislation that empowers committees to create secondary legislation, as there is little supervision, if at all, over the actions these committees make;

Confident that regulations to ensure the proper review procedures for the sterilisation of minors can be instituted by further legislation without reducing the relevancy of member nations in the decisions concerning their own future;

Hereby repeals GA#472 "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc".

The first argument given in the proposed repeal is that the structure of Institutional Review Boards in GA 111 is insufficient because IRBs 'are not required to be staffed with medical experts'. This is untrue. GA 111 'Medical Research Ethics Act' defines an 'Institutional Review Board (IRB) as a board of individuals qualified to impartially analyse medical research proposals'. If such boards were not required to have medical experts – as claimed by the repeal – they would be unqualified to analyse such proposals. The repeal's claim is a legal impossibility.

GA 111. viewtopic.php?p=3537690#p3537690

[South St Maarten]

The proposal is right as #111 does not say "medical experts" verbatim, however, the usage of "a board of individuals qualified to impartially analyse medical research proposals" should suffice, as you said. Support the challenge.

Playing devil's advocate here, although "a board of individuals qualified to impartially analyse medical research proposals" implies that medical experts are included, the word qualified is an opinion in itself, no? The proposal doesn't specifically mention what is qualified.

Like I said though, still support the challenge.

[Grays Harbor]

I’ll send up a flag to my compatriots on this.

[Bananaistan]

We're reviewing this. Community discussion is welcome, as always.

I'm not convinced that the individuals who are qualified to analyse medical research proposals are automatically medical experts. Experienced academics and scientists could well be able to analyse research proposals in any field within the context of the requirements set out in GAR#111.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm not convinced that the individuals who are qualified to analyse medical research proposals are automatically medical experts. Experienced academics and scientists could well be able to analyse research proposals in any field within the context of the requirements set out in GAR#111.

How would the experienced academics and scientists make reasoned determinations regarding the following:

REQUIRES that the IRBs reject any research that they reasonably believe may:
i. Cause participation that is not a result of an informed, impartial, and rational decision to provide consent except where the subject’s legal rights were removed by due process of law
ii. Cause preventable death, serious injury, or significant physical or psychological damage to a subject.

Without being able to understand the proposed trial and being able to make reasonable determinations about its side effects? Now, I buy that there could be people who are not medical experts on these panels. Eg philosophers. However, to be able to make such determinations, there would need to be at least some medical expertise which would be provided by an IRB having some medical experts. The repeal doesn't argue that IRBs are bad because they are not composed only of medical experts; it argues they are bad because of the possibility of not having any medical experts. It is that latter claim which I view as a legal impossibility.

[Gorundu]

Since when are resolutions required to follow the definition of terms set out in a previous resolution, especially as the target resolution is not using IRBs to its intended purpose in GA#111 (which was to analyse medical research proposals and not individual medical decisions)?

[Separatist Peoples]

Since when are resolutions required to follow the definition of terms set out in a previous resolution, especially as the target resolution is not using IRBs to its intended purpose in GA#111 (which was to analyse medical research proposals and not individual medical decisions)?

The harmonious reading canon. Provisions should be interpreted harmoniously rather than contradictory. This is implicit in the GA rule against past passed proposals being illegal, e.g. for contradiction.

[Morover]

Since when are resolutions required to follow the definition of terms set out in a previous resolution, especially as the target resolution is not using IRBs to its intended purpose in GA#111 (which was to analyse medical research proposals and not individual medical decisions)?

On the one hand, I think that the argument that "resolutions don't pass definitions" is null, as you concede in the proposal itself that the argument you made is based in the definition made in GA 111. On the other hand, however, I think it's tricky to say that such a vital part of the resolution holds basis in the definition of another, as it is dangerously close to running afoul to the HoC rule, imo. What is to happen if GA 111 were to get repealed and GA 472 wasn't?

While my mind is conflicted, I am generally convinced that this challenge holds merit on the basis of the definition of 111 applying here, as the challenged proposal is poorly written to the point of confusion, even if 472 shouldn't rely on the definition present in 111. I am not sure, however, about the actual arguments of "qualified to impartially analyze medical research proposals" =/= "medical experts".

[Separatist Peoples]

Since when are resolutions required to follow the definition of terms set out in a previous resolution, especially as the target resolution is not using IRBs to its intended purpose in GA#111 (which was to analyse medical research proposals and not individual medical decisions)?

On the one hand, I think that the argument that "resolutions don't pass definitions" is null, as you concede in the proposal itself that the argument you made is based in the definition made in GA 111. On the other hand, however, I think it's tricky to say that such a vital part of the resolution holds basis in the definition of another, as it is dangerously close to running afoul to the HoC rule, imo. What is to happen if GA 111 were to get repealed and GA 472 wasn't?

GAR#472 wouldn't be moored by the same contextual canons. A repeal weakens proposals that work with the repealed proposal. That's not far off from real world statutes.

[Morover]

On the one hand, I think that the argument that "resolutions don't pass definitions" is null, as you concede in the proposal itself that the argument you made is based in the definition made in GA 111. On the other hand, however, I think it's tricky to say that such a vital part of the resolution holds basis in the definition of another, as it is dangerously close to running afoul to the HoC rule, imo. What is to happen if GA 111 were to get repealed and GA 472 wasn't?

GAR#472 wouldn't be moored by the same contextual canons. A repeal weakens proposals that work with the repealed proposal. That's not far off from real world statutes.

My point is that if the target is reliant on 111 to work, and 111 is repealed, it should have been written in a way that doesn't make it reliant. It may very well not actually run afoul of HoC, but I think it's ridiculous to assert that the definition of 111 makes it so IRBs require medical experts on them. While not strictly true in a legal sense, if the resolution works wholly while 111 is enacted, but when 111 is repealed, it no longer has the majority of its effect, it is a poor resolution - it makes the most sense to take an interpretation which is not inherently reliant on another proposal for its operation, even if that isn't what happened. Now, the repeal at hand makes a poor job of making that point and may very well continue to be illegal because of the way it's phrased, and I'm getting more into the content side of the proposal anyways so I'll stop this here.

[Untecna]

The Untecnan ambassador sits down, orders a martini, and proceeds to speak.
This proposition would make sure that the children of this generation, and all further generations, don't have a say in whether or not they can have children.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Untecnan ambassador sits down, orders a martini, and proceeds to speak.
This proposition would make sure that the children of this generation, and all further generations, don't have a say in whether or not they can have children.

OOC: Challenge threads are OOC rule issues, not roleplay or policy debates.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Just to throw in, I always interpreted IRB's in 111 and 472 as being separate bodies (or at least able to be so, in that I do not see any prohibition of someone stupidly making them the same). 111 is concerned with medical research, not the application of already existing treatments to individual patients. It does not make any sense for them to be the same body. The former creates review boards for medical research and requires they be staffed by persons qualified to evaluate medical research proposals, which is not even remotely the same domain as evaluating the necessity of an already existing treatment as applied to a single individual case.

Nevermind that at least in the real world, the vast majority of hospitals would never have a 111 board in their institution because they are not carrying out medical research and would have thus needed to create an IRB for 472 with absolutely no reason to constitute it with persons qualified to assess medical research proposals as opposed to treatment plans. I always read and would continue to read, IRB in 111 as being specific to solely that resolution because the context makes its provisions inapplicable outside of the research context.

Which I guess means, I actually do think the repeal wording is a problem not for honest mistake, but because it is not addressing the resolution being repealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

the vast majority of hospitals would never have a 111 board in their institution because they are not carrying out medical research

A note on this: GA 111 establishes an IRB system at the nation level, not the hospital level. While the name would imply that each institution would have one, the text of GA 111, in allowing nations 'by treaty to create an IRB system in conjunction with other WA member nations for collaborative scientific research efforts' implies they exist separately from a specific medical centre. Regardless, the argument that a GA 111 IRB is unsuitable, by subject matter, for evaluating GA 472 procedures is not the argument made in the repeal.

Which I guess means, I actually do think the repeal wording is a problem not for honest mistake, but because it is not addressing the resolution being repealed.

Not addressing the target resolution would be an honest mistake. However, that is not applied at the clause level, but rather, at the proposal level. For a proposal to be illegal for not addressing the resolution (which I've called 'relevance', distinguishing from 'veracity', which is what most HM challenges – including this one – are about), no clause in the proposal – presumably excepting the 'null and void' clause at the top – would address the resolution.

[Heavens Reach]

Even if the argument against clause 1 is invalid (more on this in a second), is it not sufficient for a repeal attempt to make a single valid argument for repeal? While I don't necessarily agree with the argument for repeal predicated on clause 2 of the original resolution, I don't think it is inherently invalid like the first argument is posited to be. That said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to posit that the argument against clause 1 is invalid. If we're talking about the intention of IRBs set up in GAR 111, it is reasonable to assume that they were intended to preside over the ethics of research, and not of medical practice. Take their parallel in the real world: an instiutional review board exists to guide the ethics of an institution's research efforts, and in no case is it set up to preside over the praxis of medicine, medical research notwithstanding. I don't think it was ever the intention of GAR 111 to staff those competent to evaluate the practice of medicine, and I think that's sufficient for the argument against clause 1 to be valid, even if I don't necessarily agree that it is a distinction meriting a full-bodied repeal (but that's for delegates to decide ultimately).

[Separatist Peoples]

Even if the argument against clause 1 is invalid (more on this in a second), is it not sufficient for a repeal attempt to make a single valid argument for repeal? While I don't necessarily agree with the argument for repeal predicated on clause 2 of the original resolution, I don't think it is inherently invalid like the first argument is posited to be. That said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to posit that the argument against clause 1 is invalid. If we're talking about the intention of IRBs set up in GAR 111, it is reasonable to assume that they were intended to preside over the ethics of research, and not of medical practice. Take their parallel in the real world: an instiutional review board exists to guide the ethics of an institution's research efforts, and in no case is it set up to preside over the praxis of medicine, medical research notwithstanding. I don't think it was ever the intention of GAR 111 to staff those competent to evaluate the practice of medicine, and I think that's sufficient for the argument against clause 1 to be valid, even if I don't necessarily agree that it is a distinction meriting a full-bodied repeal (but that's for delegates to decide ultimately).

No. Any honest mistake is a violation. Substantial compliance is not a saving doctrine. We don't judge on policy so the rest of this is better suited for the debate thread and not the challenge thread.

[Heavens Reach]

Even if the argument against clause 1 is invalid (more on this in a second), is it not sufficient for a repeal attempt to make a single valid argument for repeal? While I don't necessarily agree with the argument for repeal predicated on clause 2 of the original resolution, I don't think it is inherently invalid like the first argument is posited to be. That said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to posit that the argument against clause 1 is invalid. If we're talking about the intention of IRBs set up in GAR 111, it is reasonable to assume that they were intended to preside over the ethics of research, and not of medical practice. Take their parallel in the real world: an instiutional review board exists to guide the ethics of an institution's research efforts, and in no case is it set up to preside over the praxis of medicine, medical research notwithstanding. I don't think it was ever the intention of GAR 111 to staff those competent to evaluate the practice of medicine, and I think that's sufficient for the argument against clause 1 to be valid, even if I don't necessarily agree that it is a distinction meriting a full-bodied repeal (but that's for delegates to decide ultimately).

No. Any honest mistake is a violation. Substantial compliance is not a saving doctrine. We don't judge on policy so the rest of this is better suited for the debate thread and not the challenge thread.

I would argue that a repeal is not a position of policy, but an argument against policy, and for any argument to be fully invalidated, all parts must be. But granting that you have a better grasp of the legal praxis of the WA, I would still say that my position is that the argument against clause 1 is valid.

Edit and clarification: none of the rest of my argument is on the basis of policy, but strictly on the merit of challenging the interpretation that the repeal author has made of the intended target of repeal.

[Heavens Reach]

That is to say, if their interpretation of GAR 111, and GAR 472, is valid, so is their argument against it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That is to say, if their interpretation of GAR 111, and GAR 472, is valid, so is their argument against it.

This burdens argumentation is, frankly, irrelevant. The claim made in the challenge is that the interpretation made by the author of GA 111 is invalid. That invalidity falls afoul of the veracity requirement in the Honest Mistake rule and, if affirmed, makes the proposal illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

That is to say, if their interpretation of GAR 111, and GAR 472, is valid, so is their argument against it.

The test for Honest Mistake is whether there is a colorable interpretation that supports the repeals arguments, so policy quality is irrelevant. A repeal can make a terrible policy argument and GenSec may find it legal because we only test application of rules.

GAR111 sets the minimum qualifications for board members. They must be 'qualified'. To the extent they are involved in a medical review matter, they must be so qualified. If that requires medical expertise, then GAR111 already provided for it.

I do not see any colorable interpretation that suggests that you can be a qualified researcher per 111 and also lack medical expertise. Subject matter expertise is a necessity for evaluating research, otherwise one does not know what they evaluate. Thus why I think it's an HM. But I also think that is right on the line between colorable and not colorable, so it comes down to either a willingness to let close calls be legal or your conception of how expertise works.

Id argue the former does slightly more harm than good. We already have a strong presumption in favor of a repeal argument, and I don't see a need to make it even stronger. Further, too strong in favor of repeals makes it easy to knock down quality work on poor arguments.

So, to my mind, we are left with how expertise works.

[Gorundu]

Regardless, the argument that a GA 111 IRB is unsuitable, by subject matter, for evaluating GA 472 procedures is not the argument made in the repeal.

An argument which does not need to be made considering the different mandate for GA 472 IRBs means that it is not in any way related to a GA 111 IRB except for in name, and so the rules on GA 111 IRBs should not be extended to GA 472.

[Imperium Anglorum]

the rules on GA 111 IRBs should not be extended to GA 472.

If this is your position, ie that the correct interpretation is that GA 472 IRBs are separate from GA 111 IRBs (which was rejected above), the proposal should be illegal for asserting the opposite, given the probable typo in the latter clause can only be read deferentially to refer to connecting GA 472 IRBs with GA 111 IRBs:

Concerned that Institutional Review Boards, as defined by GA#111, are bureaucratic institutions that are not required to be staffed with medical experts and thus serve no real purpose, except wasting the state's resources in setting up and maintaining such institutions;

Worried that requiring the permission of an Independent Review Board could unnecessarily prolong decision making in an emergency or in time-sensitive cases;

Not reading deferentially for the capitalised 'Independent', the proposal is an honest mistake, because no 'Independent Review Board' is authorised to give permission for regulated procedures, per GA 472 s 1. (Corrected some grammatical errors and re-clarified my statements a number of times; and then more edits to edit in corrections to this edit line.)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I do not see any colorable interpretation that suggests that you can be a qualified researcher per 111 and also lack medical expertise. Subject matter expertise is a necessity for evaluating research, otherwise one does not know what they evaluate. Thus why I think it's an HM. But I also think that is right on the line between colorable and not colorable, so it comes down to either a willingness to let close calls be legal or your conception of how expertise works.

Just as an aside: that is not real life practice. In the US 45 CFR 46.107(c) governs the composition of IRBs within the equivalent context to 111 and explicitly requires at least one member be an expert in a non-scientific field. EU 536/2014 requires the views of laypersons, especially patients and patients rights organizations be represented AND that at least one layperson serve (specific composition beyond that is left to member state law). French Public Health Code L209-11 requires a "diversity of of competences in bio-medicine and with regards to ethical, social, psychological, and judicial questions.

I do not think, with a straight face, one could claim a 111 IRB could be completely devoid of bio-medical expertise, but I think, in light of IRL practice, it is colourable to claim it does not require that such experts control, be a majority, or otherwise be the mover of the board.

To me the question would be whether if I have 2 doctors, neither of whom is an expert in what is being researched (say a GP and a heart surgeon and the proposal is in neuroscience) and 4 non-scientists on a review board (which is a qualified board by IRL practice), is it fair to say it is "not staffed with medical experts" ? I think it is within acceptable hyperbole to say so, since the resolution does not really specify any particular meaning of qualified and IRL practice would allow for a composition that is functionally all non-experts on the subject being researched.

If this is your position, ie that the correct interpretation is that GA 472 IRBs are separate from GA 111 IRBs (which was rejected above), the proposal should be illegal for asserting the opposite

I think I was unclear. I know you are responding to Gorundu, but that is what I meant, actually.

I would be comfortable saying the repeal is illegal for claiming 111 is relevant to 472 when I think the most logical reading of the two proposals is that it is not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I do not think, with a straight face, one could claim a 111 IRB could be completely devoid of bio-medical expertise, but I think, in light of IRL practice, it is colourable to claim it does not require that such experts control, be a majority, or otherwise be the mover of the board.

The repeal claims that IRBs 'are not required to be staffed with medical experts'. As I said above,

The repeal doesn't argue that IRBs are bad because they are not composed only of medical experts; it argues they are bad because of the possibility of not having any medical experts. It is that latter claim which I view as a legal impossibility.

I would be comfortable saying the repeal is illegal for claiming 111 is relevant to 472 when I think the most logical reading of the two proposals is that it is not.

If that is the point you are making, then we are in agreement, given my last post assuming arguendo that your claim of the IRBs being separate is correct.

[Heavens Reach]

That is to say, if their interpretation of GAR 111, and GAR 472, is valid, so is their argument against it.

The test for Honest Mistake is whether there is a colorable interpretation that supports the repeals arguments, so policy quality is irrelevant. A repeal can make a terrible policy argument and GenSec may find it legal because we only test application of rules.

GAR111 sets the minimum qualifications for board members. They must be 'qualified'. To the extent they are involved in a medical review matter, they must be so qualified. If that requires medical expertise, then GAR111 already provided for it.

I do not see any colorable interpretation that suggests that you can be a qualified researcher per 111 and also lack medical expertise. Subject matter expertise is a necessity for evaluating research, otherwise one does not know what they evaluate. Thus why I think it's an HM. But I also think that is right on the line between colorable and not colorable, so it comes down to either a willingness to let close calls be legal or your conception of how expertise works.

Id argue the former does slightly more harm than good. We already have a strong presumption in favor of a repeal argument, and I don't see a need to make it even stronger. Further, too strong in favor of repeals makes it easy to knock down quality work on poor arguments.

So, to my mind, we are left with how expertise works.

I still think that you are confused about what I'm arguing, which has nothing to do with how strong the argument of the repeal is.