What are these "other sects of sapient well-being", and who belongs to them?
Advertisement
by The Federal Rangers » Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:25 pm
by Black Marne » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:00 pm
by The Federal Rangers » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:35 pm
Black Marne wrote:Well, I suppose there would be the wise cat-like people of Dizyntk, the citizen bears of the powerful nation of Bears Armed, and of course, my own people, the humanoid lizard Argonians, just to name a few prominent ones.
by Connopolis » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:30 pm
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Black Marne » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:31 pm
by Herttora » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:07 pm
Connopolis wrote:
(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.
Connopolis wrote:(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
Connopolis wrote:(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.
Connopolis wrote:(5) All forms of research that meet the criteria of this proposal shall be made accessible to the public without negative consequences directed towards the enterprise that formed the treatment, and member-states governments shall not alter the price in any way, nor shall they coerce medical professionals to abstain from utilizing it; albeit, medical professionals shall be made fully aware of the treatment prior to utilization.
Connopolis wrote:(7) Medical Professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of the treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community,
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:58 pm
Connopolis wrote:Look Ma! No added bureaucracy!
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Connopolis » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:34 pm
(a) Indivudals under the national age of majority shall not participate in any experiments, without informed, written consent from both the individual, and their legal parent(s)/guardian(s).
(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Black Marne » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:01 pm
Connopolis wrote:(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.
Yours in gratitude,
by Connopolis » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:21 pm
Black Marne wrote:Connopolis wrote:(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.
Yours in gratitude,
There is a rather huge loophole there, but I'm not sure it's possible to fix.
-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Herttora » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:26 pm
Connopolis wrote:(a) Indivudals under the national age of majority shall not participate in any experiments, without informed, written consent from both the individual, and their legal parent(s)/guardian(s).
I should hope this clause suffices. I figured that a nation wouldn't lower their age of majority just to find away around this clause, as that creates all sorts of problem.(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
I added the world "crucial" to ensure that protection is granted to important studies only. If a nation decides to alleviate restrictions on mild treatments, a loophole wouldn't necessarily do much. I haven't had much time to address other concerns, but I'll get to it. I thank the honorable delegation of Hertorra for their outstanding editing capabilities, and would like to urge them, as well as other delegations to edit these clauses.
Yours in gratitude,
by Black Marne » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:05 pm
by Latanii » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:17 pm
by Unibot II » Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:06 pm
Connopolis wrote:DUMBFOUNDED by the sheer amount of progress the World Assembly has made in healthcare, and other sects of sapient well-being,
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Arivali » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:11 am
by Eternal Yerushalayim » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:47 am
by Connopolis » Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:13 am
Unibot II wrote:Eduard sipped his scotch from a juicebox, "I'm dumbfounded by both the cacology and unnecessariness of this clause."
Arivali wrote:Ummm... no.... Take out the part about doctors being able to use controversial treatment, and me not being able to restrict such research, and I'll think about it. If it's controversial, I reserve the right to decide if it's what's best. Just because it might be helpful doesn't mean it's the only way to treat something.
Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:I can only support this with a rider stating that "the World Assembly and individual nation-states reserve the concurrent authority to regulate any forms of medical treatment and/or research involving the infliction of severe and involuntary harm to human or other sapient beings".
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Herttora » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:27 pm
Connopolis wrote:Unibot II wrote:Eduard sipped his scotch from a juicebox, "I'm dumbfounded by both the cacology and unnecessariness of this clause."
I quite like the clause, thank you.Arivali wrote:Ummm... no.... Take out the part about doctors being able to use controversial treatment, and me not being able to restrict such research, and I'll think about it. If it's controversial, I reserve the right to decide if it's what's best. Just because it might be helpful doesn't mean it's the only way to treat something.
Ambassador, stymieing progress simply because one disagrees with the research is non-sensical. Your people, as do all sapient beings, reserve the right to quality, up-to-date healthcare, and no government should have the right to hinder that, unless it poses a direct threat to patients, test subjects, or others.Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:I can only support this with a rider stating that "the World Assembly and individual nation-states reserve the concurrent authority to regulate any forms of medical treatment and/or research involving the infliction of severe and involuntary harm to human or other sapient beings".
Ambassador, the Patient's Rights Act makes medical treatment available only if the individual presents informed consent. I highly doubt any informed patient would consent to highly macabre, ineffective treatments.
Yours,
by Flibbleites » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:34 pm
Herttora wrote:OOC: So, let's get silly. Deus Ex is real, specifically the augmentation issue. Now certainly many people would be willing to test this procedure, specifically people missing limbs. However, can you really say that nothing about people willingly cutting pieces of themselves off for mechanical replacement doesn't strike you as wrong?
by Pryssilvalia » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:08 pm
Connopolis wrote:(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.
Connopolis wrote:(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
by Connopolis » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:19 pm
Pryssilvalia wrote:Connopolis wrote:(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be persecuted by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless the individual was not made fully aware of the ramifications or production of the treatment.
Well done, you've just legalized embryonic stem cell, fetal tissue implant, and many other treatments that, though sound in medical basis, have extensive ethical implications that a patient about to die would not care about, but others might. Look, controversial treatments have very good reason to be controversial, what you've just done is to legalize them all (albeit with the small requirement of consent, but that's really nothing). I don't think this is a wise move, ambassador.
Furthermore, the requirement of consent, or "made fully aware of the ramifications", is so vague that it might be too easy, or too difficult to satisfy. If a doctor say "this treatment has 30% chance of saving you and 70% of killing you", does that mean that the patient has been made fully aware of the ramifications...
...or does the doctor have to explain carefully how the treatment might kill the patient? Furthermore, ramifications of controversial treatment can be difficult to determine, since some of them are relatively new and untested. What if the result of the treatment does not fall within the expectation of the doctor or the patient, nor does it fall in the expectation of anyone in the medical world, does that mean that the patient hasn't been made fully aware of the ramifications? What if a doctor chooses a treatment that no other doctor would choose, making the patient agreeing to that treatment (and understanding its ramification) and subsequently kills him?
Connopolis wrote:(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless it is proven that the treatment poses mental or physical complications to test subjects.
"Test subjects" as in, what? Humans? Animals? Foetus? How about aborted foetus?
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Pryssilvalia » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:49 pm
Connopolis wrote:Ambassador, that was the point. You seem to be arguing that the patient's prerogative is immaterial, and that others, mainly the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with? Controversial treatments are controversial due to personal beliefs, albeit, commonly held by the majority. However, the whim of the majority does not dictate whether John Smith shall live or die, despite his view on the topic. Even in most texts, such as Lockean Social Contract, the state is established to benefit the citizens; indirectly killing them off simply because the government disagrees is non-sensical at best.
Connopolis wrote:If the patient is fully aware of all possible complications, and the doctor proceeds, with the patient's consent, then this is legal, not due to this resolution, but again, because of the Patient's Rights Act. Granted, if the treatment is untested, or highly ineffective, the medical professional must explain this; I would see very little chance of a patient consenting to an untested or ineffective treatment...
by Connopolis » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:00 pm
Pryssilvalia wrote:Connopolis wrote:Ambassador, that was the point. You seem to be arguing that the patient's prerogative is immaterial, and that others, mainly the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with? Controversial treatments are controversial due to personal beliefs, albeit, commonly held by the majority. However, the whim of the majority does not dictate whether John Smith shall live or die, despite his view on the topic. Even in most texts, such as Lockean Social Contract, the state is established to benefit the citizens; indirectly killing them off simply because the government disagrees is non-sensical at best.
Ah, are we all for killing foetus now? Fair enough. But I differ on your opinion that it is wrong that the general populace should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with. What if the only way for John Smith to survive is to kill another person (e.g. lack of organs for transplant, the only way is to kill someone to take the organ), and John Smith is all willing for killing another person to save himself? Does the "whim" of the majority not matter here, esteemed ambassador?
Connopolis wrote:If the patient is fully aware of all possible complications, and the doctor proceeds, with the patient's consent, then this is legal, not due to this resolution, but again, because of the Patient's Rights Act. Granted, if the treatment is untested, or highly ineffective, the medical professional must explain this; I would see very little chance of a patient consenting to an untested or ineffective treatment...
I beg to differ. If the patient is made to believe that the sole treatment available is the treatment that the doctor proposes, you'll find that many will agree to such treatment, even if they are untested or have low chance of success, or even if there are better treatments around (that the patient does not know of). Frankly, this clause allows doctors to "experiment" on their patients freely, taking advantage of their ignorance and desperation.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Pryssilvalia » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:10 pm
Connopolis wrote:You seem to be equating stem cell research to murdering innocent civilians based on an individual's prerogative. There is a distinct differenec between a commonly recognized form of medical treatment, and senseless slaughter, your excellency.
Connopolis wrote:I'm lost; if the patient consents, and you (as you acknowledged in your own argument) that treatment is the only treatment available, despite its untested nature, why would a patient turn it down? Death is the only game you lose by not playing. Also, the Clinical Trials Act (forgive me if the name is incorrect, it's very late right now) mandates that all test subjects be informed of their participation in experiments, as well as the ramifications. Your point is either moot, or illegal due to prior legislation... Surely a doctor can't take advantage of a patient/test subjects ignorance/desperation if the individual is fully informed, fully consenting, and fully capable of declining the procedure at any point?
by Black Marne » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:25 pm
Pryssilvalia wrote:Connopolis wrote:You seem to be equating stem cell research to murdering innocent civilians based on an individual's prerogative. There is a distinct differenec between a commonly recognized form of medical treatment, and senseless slaughter, your excellency.
I only point out an obvious argument against your argument that it is wrong that "the general populace, should determine what is ethically sensible for the patient to be treated with". If you can't understand my point then there really isn't any point to go further.
Wait, wasn't that YOUR argument, esteemed ambassador?Connopolis wrote:I'm lost; if the patient consents, and you (as you acknowledged in your own argument) that treatment is the only treatment available, despite its untested nature, why would a patient turn it down? Death is the only game you lose by not playing. Also, the Clinical Trials Act (forgive me if the name is incorrect, it's very late right now) mandates that all test subjects be informed of their participation in experiments, as well as the ramifications. Your point is either moot, or illegal due to prior legislation... Surely a doctor can't take advantage of a patient/test subjects ignorance/desperation if the individual is fully informed, fully consenting, and fully capable of declining the procedure at any point?
Some doctors might not know if there are other treatments around (i.e. negligence) or they might intentionally hide the existence of other treatments in order to serve their own nefarious purposes. That is entirely my point. Taking the advantage of the patient's ignorance and desperation, the doctor is able to perform medical procedures that are inefficient or in fact even untested, so long as the patient is made fully aware of the ramifications of such treatment (and made unaware of other better treatments around).
Oh you MUST be kidding me, esteemed ambassador. The use of untested treatment when no other option available is when the MD uses it, telling the patient the full ramifications. To hide other possible treatments is ILLEGAL under this act, and perhaps also the Patient's Right Act.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement