[PASSED] Rights of the Disabled act

by **Mikeswill** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:38 am

Continued rereading of the WA Resolution, Rights of Disabled Act, results in 1) the removal of rights from the so-called Mentally Disabled, 2) the transfer of these rights to a person in the name of “Responsible Adult”, and 3) vague understanding of the purpose or power of this “Responsible Adult” acting for the Mentally Disabled.

Further, Ziptron points out the definition of Mentally Disabled is sufficiently ambiguous to include individuals whose actions may not fit the medically accepted definition of Medically Disabled per the ADA or the DSM-IV.

As such Mikeswill voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Rights of the Disabled Act".

MH

by **I Want to Smash Them All** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:42 am

Venetoland wrote:The physically disabled, though cognitiviely intact, also need protections.

Which (although partially addressed already by GA law (IMO)) could be the subject of another resolution. Nothing in this resolution impacts the physically disabled in any way.

by **Cowardly Pacifists** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:44 am

Yes, this is a genuinely bad proposal that will soon be a genuinely bad resolution.

I suspect it will be repealed in the future.

by **I Want to Smash Them All** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:21 am

Ziptron wrote:As much as we would wish to support this concept, the definition of a mentally impaired individual is fatally flawed. Using the second and third items, it would be possible to define any jailed criminal as a mentally impaired person who deserves protection under this proposal. That's not what we want to do.

Ambassador, with all due respect, please refrain from being ridiculous. You offer no explanation for how "it would be possible to define any jailed criminal as a mentally impaired person who deserves protection under this proposal" and the assertion is far from self-evident. Also, to the extent a jailed criminal could legitimately be "a Mentally Disabled person" and recieve protection under this resolution it is entirely unclear why that is necessarily negative -- it would not impact the individual's status as "a jailed criminal." In fact, some individual in jail for criminal activity may actually be "a Mentally Disabled person" and should receive the protections provided in this resolution.

Regardless, your assertion (to the extent it implies a jailed criminal would necessarily or possibly be illegitimatly defined as protected under this proposal), is wrong. Let's look at the relevant language:

Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:
The ability to understand their rights
Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation
Their ability to exercise their rights
Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

So to be "a Mentally Disabled person" for the purpose of receiving the protections of the act, a jailed criminal first must have reduced sapience. Looking at your assertion, the jailed criminals reduced sapience must cause a "significant[] reduc[tion]" in the jailed criminal's abilities related to both of the second and third items. How is merely being a jailed criminal mean that one has reduced sapience that has caused a significant reduction in both one's "ability to defend [one's] rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation" and one's "ability to exercise [one's] rights"?

You may be thinking that a jailed criminal, as a result of being jailed for criminal activity, has reduced rights compared to "average citizen[s]." This is likely true, but irrelevant. Mentally Disabled persons (who qualify as such under the second and third criteria" have a significantly reduced ability to "defend their rights" and to "exercise their rights. If an individual has reduced rights due to being a jailed criminal, the focus is on the abilities of the individual to defend and exercise those extraneously limited rights. Also, the cause of the significantly reduced rights is not reduced sapience.

by **I Want to Smash Them All** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:55 am

Mousebumples wrote:For starters, the draft talks about "conflict of interest" all over the place - and a single, well-written clause could cover all of that much more coherently. Additionally, "conflict of interest" is a ... nebulous term that I would have preferred to have a definition for - or at least a basic framework. (Yes, I'm asking for a definition in a resolution - stop the presses! )

Pshaw. I have great respect for you, esteemed Ambassador, but your preference is not well-founded. Although a definition of "conflict of interest" might improve the proposal, it is hardly necessary. "Conflict of interest" is common term with a plain meaning: "a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust."

Mousebumples wrote:Parents have a "conflict of interest" - they don't want to see Disabled Dave suffer. (In fact, I'd figure that most family members would have said conflict of interest.)

No. That is not a "conflict of interest. How could it be? Are you saying it is necessarily in Dave's interest to suffer? Is that inherently oxymoronic?

Mousebumples wrote:I'd guess the author probably means more "financial conflict of interest" (i.e. let's skimp on Disabled Dave's care, so there's more $$$ for me!) ... but that's not what the resolution says, sadly.

Conflicts of interest neither are nor should be limited to financial matters.

Mousebumples wrote:Also: Urges the states using this legislation to work towards a position whereby a Disabled Person's authority is returned to them at the earliest possible juncture

Per their own definition of Disabled Person, it's quite possible that a Disabled Person may never have their authority returned to them. However, we're supposed to work towards "a position" (which, what does that even MEAN?!) where they can get their authority back. If they have dementia and can't make decisions for themselves, that's impossible. If they're mentally disabled with the cognitive abilities of a 3 year old, that's impossible.

Um, esteemed Ambassador, what exactly is the problem here? It is quite possible a Disabled Person may never have their authority returned to them. You provide examples of where that likely would be and should be the case. Nothing in the proposal contradicts that. It merely urges nations to try to return a Disabled Person's authority "at the earliest possible junction". For some that junction may never come. So what?

by **Imperium Londinium** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:47 pm

I thank the ambassador from I Want to Smash them all for his succinct and correct interpretationof this resolution. It was designed from the start only to be used in necessary cases, which is in fact stated in the Resolution. The definitions of mental disabilitywere sspecifically designed to affect the smallest sub section possible of society. And as to the accusations of bad grammar, I have only seen an issue with the repeated of of issue, which unfortunately word did not pick up. As I have seen many resolutions both in the WA andin RL that have worse issues wwith them I don't believe it to be a crippling issue. I do however welcome these criticisms for they are showing me new ways to interpret the wording. In each case so far however I do not believe they have sufficiently established an issue not covered by the reasonable nation rule

by **Aktania** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:18 pm

The people of Aktania are strongly FOR this act. It is clear in stating its own boundaries which have been addressed in previous comments / replies, and the people of Aktania back it entirely.

Looking forward to seeing this passed and kept in action,
- The United Councils of Aktania

by **Tobeqwador** » Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:11 pm

I agree with this in a sense. If they are aware enough to know they are alive, then they deserve to be taken care of, but if they are a vegetable, a nation shouldn't have to waste the time and money keeping them alive.

by **Abacathea** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:17 am

Tobeqwador wrote:I agree with this in a sense. If they are aware enough to know they are alive, then they deserve to be taken care of, but if they are a vegetable, a nation shouldn't have to waste the time and money keeping them alive.

The nation of Abacathea, wishes to note for the record, that some citizens of the finest nations out there, are in fact, vegetables, not in the mental sense, but actual vegetables, and that they too are entitled to as much governance as any one else. Carrot or not.

by **Dagguerro** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:52 am

Abacathea wrote:
Tobeqwador wrote:I agree with this in a sense. If they are aware enough to know they are alive, then they deserve to be taken care of, but if they are a vegetable, a nation shouldn't have to waste the time and money keeping them alive.

The nation of Abacathea, wishes to note for the record, that some citizens of the finest nations out there, are in fact, vegetables, not in the mental sense, but actual vegetables, and that they too are entitled to as much governance as any one else. Carrot or not.

Indeed, I find the Ambassador for Tobeqwador's phrasing extremely offensive towards sentient plantlife. They are surely entitled to the same medical support as any other being?

- Lord Swift

by **Imperium Londinium** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:06 am

Dagguerro wrote:
Abacathea wrote:
The nation of Abacathea, wishes to note for the record, that some citizens of the finest nations out there, are in fact, vegetables, not in the mental sense, but actual vegetables, and that they too are entitled to as much governance as any one else. Carrot or not.

Indeed, I find the Ambassador for Tobeqwador's phrasing extremely offensive towards sentient plantlife. They are surely entitled to the same medical support as any other being?

- Lord Swift

If they got the same medical care, they might not find blood transfusions too helpful :rofl:

I suggest they all get appropriate healthcare, the WA does like its wording to be right after all

by **Seriong** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:59 am

In the way you define it, they only have to meet two:

"The ability to understand their rights

Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation

Their ability to exercise their rights

Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety"

A physically disabled disabled person below average intelligence would qualify as mentally disabled under number: '2' and '4'.

by **Imperium Londinium** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:10 pm

Not necessarily, only if their Sapience is the cause of their disability. Physically disabled people are not covered by this unless their disability also affects their mind

by **Foofieboo** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:40 pm

If this act passes, it could remove rights from the disabled - I petition that the name be changed to Removal of Rights of the Disabled Act. The current heading is misleading and unethical.

I am all compassionate to people in need and their "best interests," but this act, if passed, could be easily abused by tyrannical governments. It also does not stipulate enough details for many necessary new WA commissions and programs and how they would function in the various member nations.

In general, the idea of a World Assembly resolution that enables court-ordered power of attorney is offensive and potentially corrupting. Power of attorney is something that should require the individual's consent. The reasons in the act (below) are vague, easily manipulated and generally against basic natural freedoms.

The ability to understand their rights

Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation

Their ability to exercise their rights

Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

Create a system to protect individuals who need help, but only give the system power to help them when they ask for it or are unable to respond (vegetative state). The World Assembly should not take away an individual's right to control themselves - even if an individual chooses to make a personally unhealthy decision. It is their right to choose what to do with themselves.

This act could be used to deny public freedoms to people just because they are unable to "understand their rights" and might make decisions that are not "informed" about their health and safety. It sounds like a good plan, everybody wants to help people who can't help themselves, but it is needlessly manipulative more than effective.

First, There is no test for knowing when an individual "understands" their rights, and no WA commission to make one. Furthermore, how would a WA commission be expected to understand the rights a person has in numerous individual countries? Also, does the World Assembly have a ratified list of "informed decisions" regarding health and safety? Didn't think so.

Each country has a system to define rights and make judgments for an individual's competency - this act's attempt to create big brother for disabled people is redundant and, frankly, tyrannical.

by **Imperium Londinium** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:16 pm

Foofieboo wrote:If this act passes, it could remove rights from the disabled - I petition that the name be changed to Removal of Rights of the Disabled Act. The current heading is misleading and unethical.

I am all compassionate to people in need and their "best interests," but this act, if passed, could be easily abused by tyrannical governments. It also does not stipulate enough details for many necessary new WA commissions and programs and how they would function in the various member nations.

In general, the idea of a World Assembly resolution that enables court-ordered power of attorney is offensive and potentially corrupting. Power of attorney is something that should require the individual's consent. The reasons in the act (below) are vague, easily manipulated and generally against basic natural freedoms.

The ability to understand their rights

Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation

Their ability to exercise their rights

Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

Create a system to protect individuals who need help, but only give the system power to help them when they ask for it or are unable to respond (vegetative state). The World Assembly should not take away an individual's right to control themselves - even if an individual chooses to make a personally unhealthy decision. It is their right to choose what to do with themselves.

This act could be used to deny public freedoms to people just because they are unable to "understand their rights" and might make decisions that are not "informed" about their health and safety. It sounds like a good plan, everybody wants to help people who can't help themselves, but it is needlessly manipulative more than effective.

First, There is no test for knowing when an individual "understands" their rights, and no WA commission to make one. Furthermore, how would a WA commission be expected to understand the rights a person has in numerous individual countries? Also, does the World Assembly have a ratified list of "informed decisions" regarding health and safety? Didn't think so.

Each country has a system to define rights and make judgments for an individual's competency - this act's attempt to create big brother for disabled people is redundant and, frankly, tyrannical.

I'd like to point out that the emphasis you add to certain words in the resolution warps its meaning, for example:
Their ability to make "informed" decisions regarding their health and safety,
Is very different to
Their "ability" to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety.
You seem to forget, this in no way says that people can't make uninformed decisions, merely that if they are unable to make decisions, such as when they are in a vegitive state, there are provisions to safeguard them. Please don't add emphasis, it appears to support your point but in the end just hides the fact you are not reading the active clause in the point and so misunderstanding what it says.

by **Hirota** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:08 pm

For: 7,914. Against: 3,347.

Voting ends in 1 day 5 hours.

Is it premature to offer congratulations?

(Also, I wonder when we see the first insta-repeal thread up)

by **Imperium Londinium** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:18 pm

Hirota wrote:For: 7,914. Against: 3,347.

Voting ends in 1 day 5 hours.

Is it premature to offer congratulations?

(Also, I wonder when we see the first insta-repeal thread up)

I reckon it's still too early to tell

And the first insta-repeal? Any takers on less than 10 minutes after it passes?

by **Mousebumples** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:35 pm

Given the length of the queue, no repeal attempt will be Insta ....

by **Damanucus** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:34 pm

Just a couple of problems I have with this:

Imperium Londinium wrote:Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:
The ability to understand their rights
Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation
Their ability to exercise their rights
Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety

I would prefer this definition to be restricted to those who cannot exercise all four of these, as it defines those who have undergone environmental conditioning (i.e. they are unable to properly understand their personal rights or make decisions regarding their health) as being mentally disabled. Additionally, if they do not know their rights, but can make informed decisions about their health nonetheless, they shouldn't be identified as mentally disabled in the context of this resolution.

Imperium Londinium wrote:Defines a Responsible Adult as one of the following
...
...
In lieu of a suitable candidate, a representative, independent of the national government, must be selected, who must also pass a test of conflict of interest.

(Clause in concern in red.)

I would've preferred "a test in order to prevent a conflict of interest"; this statement can be misinterpreted a little too easily.

I feel this topic is one that must be discussed; however, these two parts, in my honest opinion, are not up to the level I feel are necessary. As much as people may dislike me for this, I must vote AGAINST, and hope that it will be returned to draft and repaired in these areas.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

by **The Laudean Republic** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:24 pm

Jesus can someone please spell Ludacris? I mean even he would say HOW RIDICULOUS and stupid this resolution sounds. What happens if a person is born Mentally Retarded? How can they appoint a representative, and who appoints this representative? the national government or the WA? who makes the test for conflicting interests? The WA delegates seem to not deserve their own rights separating their SOVEREIGN power from the WA's SELF-APPOINTED powers. This is not the first and probably not the last Proposal that will make The Laudean Republic's national congress to discuss our membership status.
With Respect; to fewer and fewer.

by **Foofieboo** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:49 am

Imperium Londinium wrote:I'd like to point out that the emphasis you add to certain words in the resolution warps its meaning, for example:
Their ability to make "informed" decisions regarding their health and safety,
Is very different to
Their "ability" to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety.
You seem to forget, this in no way says that people can't make uninformed decisions, merely that if they are unable to make decisions, such as when they are in a vegitive state, there are provisions to safeguard them. Please don't add emphasis, it appears to support your point but in the end just hides the fact you are not reading the active clause in the point and so misunderstanding what it says.

I have read numerous comments on here about how this does not refer to physical disability, which is fine, but this act does not specifically list vegetative state, both considered a physical and mental disability, as what it wants to provide safeguards for. My objection is that this act has powers that reach far beyond protecting the interests of people in a vegetative state.

I am certain that under this act I could use your "ability" to rationalize this removal of freedoms as evidence of your inability to make informed decisions about your health and safety (just as you could argue that my disagreement with the act would be evidence that I am not in my right mind).

Any informed person would recognize the removal of freedoms in this act, and the fact that you don't recognize it shows me that you are unable to - and therefore should not be allowed to decide either way. I hope you follow the spirit of the act and suspend your vote until the time we can appoint a "responsible person" to act with your power of attorney and cast the vote in your best interest.

by **Moderadora Laura** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:29 pm

From the proposal:

"Mandates that the said Responsible Adult be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that no conflict of interest develops"
"Mandates the creation of a commission to monitor states for abuse of this legislation"

As we can see clearly, it's an obvious attempt to create more unnecessary public jobs within the world assembly and the national governments
We respect the politics of individual contries, and believe they can deal with this issue without further allegoric supervision

by **Distributist Chestertonia** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:42 pm

Imperium Londinium wrote:The World Assembly,

Recognising the need for a formal resolution on the procedures to protect the mentally disabled,
Understanding that there are multiple levels of of Mental Disability
Therefore Defining,for the purposes of this act, a Mentally Disabled person to be a sapient individual, above the age of majority, whose sapience has been reduced to the point where any two or more of the following are significantly reduced:
The ability to understand their rights
Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation
Their ability to exercise their rights
Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety
Hereby Mandates that in necessary cases, including but not limited to; legal matters, court matters, and medical consent, a limited power of attorney be transferred to a Responsible Adult.
Defines a Responsible Adult as one of the following
A preferred Responsible Adult, nominated by the person before they become disabled, will be the first person requested to become the Responsible Adult, but only if they can prove that they have no conflict of interest
A member of the Disabled Person's family, who can legally establish that they have no conflict of interests
In lieu of a suitable candidate, a representative, independent of the national government, must be selected, who must also pass a test of conflict of interest.
Mandates that the said Responsible Adult be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that no conflict of interest develops
Restricts the power of Attorney given to the Responsible Adult to the least possible in the circumstances
Urges the states to use this legislation as a matter of last resort, and to consider all alternatives before transferring a persons authority to another.
Urges the states using this legislation to work towards a position whereby a Disabled Person's authority is returned to them at the earliest possible juncture
Mandates the creation of a commission to monitor states for abuse of this legislation

Category Human Rights
Strength medium

As a second attempt at a first WA proposal, I think this is slightly better. Less controversial at least

I would appreciate as much help with this as possible

Distributist Chestertonia, while not being part of the WA, nevertheless commends the WA for putting this bill to vote. Although this issue could probably have been addressed more efficiently at a more local level, it is nevertheless a wisely assembled bill which takes the rights and responsibilities of our mentally challenged brothers into consideration. It addresses a key issue with a just, morally licit and fairly practical solution any nation ought to be able to carry out. God and country could not ask for more.

by **I Want to Smash Them All** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:55 pm

Foofieboo wrote:
Imperium Londinium wrote:I'd like to point out that the emphasis you add to certain words in the resolution warps its meaning, for example:
Their ability to make "informed" decisions regarding their health and safety,
Is very different to
Their "ability" to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety.
You seem to forget, this in no way says that people can't make uninformed decisions, merely that if they are unable to make decisions, such as when they are in a vegitive state, there are provisions to safeguard them. Please don't add emphasis, it appears to support your point but in the end just hides the fact you are not reading the active clause in the point and so misunderstanding what it says.

I have read numerous comments on here about how this does not refer to physical disability, which is fine, but this act does not specifically list vegetative state, both considered a physical and mental disability, as what it wants to provide safeguards for. My objection is that this act has powers that reach far beyond protecting the interests of people in a vegetative state.

I am certain that under this act I could use your "ability" to rationalize this removal of freedoms as evidence of your inability to make informed decisions about your health and safety (just as you could argue that my disagreement with the act would be evidence that I am not in my right mind).

Any informed person would recognize the removal of freedoms in this act, and the fact that you don't recognize it shows me that you are unable to - and therefore should not be allowed to decide either way. I hope you follow the spirit of the act and suspend your vote until the time we can appoint a "responsible person" to act with your power of attorney and cast the vote in your best interest.

Ah, good ole WA, where rebutting a post that tried to distort both the language and spirit of a proposal by pointing to what a proposed resolution actually says (as in "the resolution DOES what the resolution SAYS") results in an Ambassador being personally insulted. It warms the cockles of the mechanical device formerly known as my heart to see the continued level of civilized discourse in this august body. :clap:

by **Strawberrry Fields** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:01 pm

This WA GA Rights of the Disabled Act resolution, the way it defines Mentally Disabled people has nothing to do with mental health or physical health. Only needing 2 of the following;

"i. The ability to understand their rights"

People ignorant of the law and their rights are considered to be mentally disabled. Some nations don't even try to educate their people on their rights.

"ii. Their ability to defend their rights to the same extent as the average citizen in their nation"

If there ignorant of the law then they probably can't defend their rights well either, and how is failing to defends ones right from aggressors trying to take advantage warrant being mentally disabled.

"iii. Their ability to exercise their rights"

This is also vague, how would ones ability to exercise their rights be defined. Does failing to vote in an election count, or what about more oppressive nations who try to limit people's rights, they can now claim their people Mental disable and thus should have less rights and be controlled.

"iv. Their ability to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety"

Many nations don't put the same focus into education in general or about health. People who go to burger king to many times could be considered mentally disabled under this resolution.

Not to mention what is defined as health and safety, doing illegal drugs would be considered unhealthy, and which drugs are legal in a nation would play a role, nations with alcohol illegal could say it's bad for your health therefore, people who drink are mentally disabled.

This resolution basically makes the majority of most people's nations population considered mentally disabled.

[PASSED] Rights of the Disabled act

Who is online