NATION

PASSWORD

[DISCARDED] Psychiatric Care Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

[DISCARDED] Psychiatric Care Act

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:00 pm

This is a replacement for GA#140, which is currently in the process of being repealed has been repealed.

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the fundamental rights to treatment and care that people with mental illness possess, and the high quality of care necessary to treat these individuals,

And believing that these rights ought to be upheld by the World Assembly,

Enacts the following provisions into law:

  1. Gender identity, sexual orientation, political alignment or religious beliefs in and of themselves shall not be considered mental illness, nor shall any individual possessing these qualities be diagnosed with a mental illness on the basis of these characteristics.
  2. Individuals with mental illness may not be persecuted on the basis of them having said mental illness.
  3. Individuals may not be involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility unless it is an absolute necessity for the health and safety of the patient and/or others.
  4. When plausible and optimal for the patient's health, steps must be taken to treat a patient without having to admit them to a mental health facility.
  5. Individuals with mental illness shall not be denied access to qualified and appropriate psychiatric care, and any care that they receive shall be free of abuse and exploitation.
  6. Those with mental illness may refuse all care and treatment including but not limited to confinement to a mental health facility, unless they pose a direct threat to themselves or others.
  7. The following rights are guaranteed to patients in mental health facilities, and shall be upheld in all member-states:
    1. Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.
    2. Uncensored and daily allowance of visitation, as long as;
      1. The visitor(s) are not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the patient or others,
      2. The patient being visited is not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the visitor(s) or others, and
      3. The patient and visitor(s) both freely consent to the visit.
    3. Visits may be monitored by appropriately equipped facility staff at the patient's request or their visitor's request.
    4. Patients must be released from the mental health facility as soon as it is safe to do so for the patient as well as society, and with the patient consenting. Proper psychiatric help will continue to be offered so long as the former patient still requests or requires.
    5. All feasible steps to ensure an enjoyable and pleasant atmosphere, including a diversity of activities for both leisure and personal enrichment for all patients, will be taken within all mental health facilities.
    6. Freedom of movement and lack of restraint except where freedom of movement must be limited to prevent individuals from injuring themselves or others, or to prevent them from leaving the mental health facility.
    7. Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses.
    8. The status of having a mental illness shall not be considered a crime.
  8. Following a patient’s release, efforts must be made by member nations to assimilate the former patient back into society.
  9. Patients are not permitted to be transferred outside of the jurisdiction of the World Assembly for the purposes of bypassing this resolution.

Co-author: Morover
Last edited by Jedinsto on Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:21 am, edited 18 times in total.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11832
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:39 pm

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Mister duBois, if this is your idea of a replacement, it is certainly - if unfortunately - a very literal one in parts and a surprisingly different beast in all the wrong places, as I will shortly demonstrate through the use of... this table.

WHAT IT DOES
GA#140 "Institutional Psychiatry Act"
Eduard Hier and Pascal S. Wager
Psychiatric Care Act
James duBois and Darin Perise
Decriminalise mental health conditions
Allow those with mental health conditions to receive dignified, non-abusive, professional mental healthcare
Forbid overseas transfer to facilitate non-compliance with provisions
Require that mental healthcare facilities (MHFs) offer a fun, relaxed environment
Permit involuntary confinement to MHFs under at least some, but not all, circumstances
Require MHF residents to be released when safe
Allow residents of MHFs to be visited by others who pose no threat to them
Allow consensual contact involving those held at MHFs which is not pre-screened
Create an underclass of people with mental health conditions because of their criminal status
Allow confinement to MHFs because of:
→ Sexual Orientation
→ Gender Identity
→ Peaceful Expression of Opposition to the Government

because the government thinks they will pose a "direct and imminent threat to... others"
.
>>> ✅ <<<
.

Smith: Suffice to say that I look forward to voting against this and the preceding repeal at vote.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular SC resolution ever
Who am I, really? 47yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading Principles for Dealing With The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3459
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:07 pm

Allow confinement to MHFs because of:
→ Sexual Orientation
→ Gender Identity
→ Peaceful Expression of Opposition to the Government
because the government thinks they will pose a "direct and imminent threat to... others"


"This hyperbolic nonsense and I urge the authors to ignore it."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Diplomat
 
Posts: 580
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:07 pm

Ambassador Smith, forgive us, but it sounds as if, against all reason, you are asserting that it would be possible to declare that, by means of example, that homosexuality, transgenderism, and holding left-wing political opinions are mental illnesses? We believe it likely, given the frankly ridiculous levels this assembly goes to in denying the Natural Law, that doing so would violate at least one, possibly several, other resolutions. If not, we would also ask, Ambassador, what language in the prior resolution do you think prohibits such conduct, as our legal department is unable to find where resolution 140 addresses involuntary confinement in its text, though we may have overlooked it given the poor formatting and use of longer clauses.
N’oubliez pas l’hospitalité car, grâce à elle, certains, sans le savoir, ont accueilli des anges.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:15 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:Ambassador Smith, forgive us, but it sounds as if, against all reason, you are asserting that it would be possible to declare that, by means of example, that homosexuality, transgenderism, and holding left-wing political opinions are mental illnesses? We believe it likely, given the frankly ridiculous levels this assembly goes to in denying the Natural Law, that doing so would violate at least one, possibly several, other resolutions. If not, we would also ask, Ambassador, what language in the prior resolution do you think prohibits such conduct, as our legal department is unable to find where resolution 140 addresses involuntary confinement in its text, though we may have overlooked it given the poor formatting and use of longer clauses.

"Transgenderism cannot be considered mental illness due GA#467. I was not able to find any legislation preventing gender identity or sexuality from being considered mental illness, however, so this has been worked into the resolution. See new clause 1. Ambassador Smith refers to clause 5 of #140 that takes these measures."

OOC: Following discussions on discord, Tinhampton's post, and some thought on my own, edits have been made.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:16 pm

Bananaistan wrote:
Allow confinement to MHFs because of:
→ Sexual Orientation
→ Gender Identity
→ Peaceful Expression of Opposition to the Government
because the government thinks they will pose a "direct and imminent threat to... others"


"This hyperbolic nonsense and I urge the authors to ignore it."

"This may be so, but it is a risk I would rather not take."

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3459
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:23 pm

"Opposed. It takes a special kind of specialness for grown adults to believe in the magical sky fairy."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:27 pm

Cleaned up clause 1

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Diplomat
 
Posts: 580
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:47 pm

Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed. It takes a special kind of specialness for grown adults to believe in the magical sky fairy."


We concur in principle if not in specifics here, as belief in the Gods is entirely rational. However, it is entirely justifiable to view the holding of certain beliefs, such as, for instance, the belief, however honest, that one is abducted by unidentified extraterrestrials for nightly anal probing, or that one is the target of a government-backed black magic cabal, as sufficient to establish enough impairment to qualify as a mental disorder. Or, more mundanely, simply hypochondria at a clinically significant level.

We also consider it exceedingly unlikely the compliance commission would take the view that people engaging in activities that WA law affirmatively requires nations to permit could constitute mental illness under members' obligation of good faith in compliance and would encourage the author to revert to the prior language of clause 1 or find some other way of expressing the sentiment.

Thank you for bringing our attention to clause 5 of the prior resolution. Our translators seemingly missed that entire article. Then again, since our opinion is it was covered anywhere, at least we will not have to change the laws for that oversite. We shall still hunt down those responsible and sack them, however.
N’oubliez pas l’hospitalité car, grâce à elle, certains, sans le savoir, ont accueilli des anges.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:39 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed. It takes a special kind of specialness for grown adults to believe in the magical sky fairy."


We concur in principle if not in specifics here, as belief in the Gods is entirely rational. However, it is entirely justifiable to view the holding of certain beliefs, such as, for instance, the belief, however honest, that one is abducted by unidentified extraterrestrials for nightly anal probing, or that one is the target of a government-backed black magic cabal, as sufficient to establish enough impairment to qualify as a mental disorder. Or, more mundanely, simply hypochondria at a clinically significant level.

We also consider it exceedingly unlikely the compliance commission would take the view that people engaging in activities that WA law affirmatively requires nations to permit could constitute mental illness under members' obligation of good faith in compliance and would encourage the author to revert to the prior language of clause 1 or find some other way of expressing the sentiment.

Thank you for bringing our attention to clause 5 of the prior resolution. Our translators seemingly missed that entire article. Then again, since our opinion is it was covered anywhere, at least we will not have to change the laws for that oversite. We shall still hunt down those responsible and sack them, however.

"You have a point there, ambassador. I've found a way to change the wording to satisfy this change."

Edit: I ended up just removing the honest belief part altogether. Any opinion that isn't a political belief probably doesn't need protection anyways. The reason being- you can tell if an opinion is one that constitutes insanity or not.
Last edited by Jedinsto on Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15860
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:50 am

Jedinsto wrote:Gender identity, sexual orientation, political alignment, political beliefs, and religion shall not be considered mental illness.

OOC: But having blonde hair and blue eyes can be, as well as being of a certain ethnicity, I see... I suggest having the boilerplate "or other reductive categorization" or something like that, which is I think in CoCR too.

Individuals possessing mental illness

I really have a problem with this "possessing mental illness" thing. I don't own my bipolar disorder. If anything, it possesses me from time to time, sans meds. Maybe you could use the far more neutral "individuals with mental illness", like in the next one?

Those with mental illness shall not be involuntarily confined to a mental health facility solely for possessing mental illness, unless they pose a direct and imminent threat to themselves or others.

I think you might also want to specify that individuals can refuse all care and treatment, not just in facilities but outpatient programs too, if they are not a danger.

Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients agree to be contacted.

I get that you're coming at this from personal liberties of the patient kind of point, thus thinking this is a good thing, but the receiving of uncensored communication is not necessarily that good. Imagine someone intentionally bullied/tormented on the brink of suicide and then in the safe place - or the place that should be safe - the bully/tormentor is allowed to carry on the campaign of abuse remotely. You might want to at least enable screening of communications for vulnerable individuals. So that malicious communications harmful to the individual's mental balance at not allowed as incoming communications. Possibly outgoing too, if the patient themselves are the bully/harasser. "Monitored" might be a good word to use. It's not censorship, it's intervention in a flammable situation.

The patient being visited is not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the visitor(s), and

Vice versa too!

And I'd clarify that meetings can be monitored if the patient wants them to be. They might not feel safe to meet with family members, for example, if there's been any bad blood between them before. Whether the threat was real or not, it might feel real to the patient.

Being released from the mental health facility as soon as it is safe to do so for the patient as well as society.

Following this guideline is why psychiatric healthcare has in RL Finland gone down the drain in the last decade or so. Please do not implement this WA-wide!

Being thrown out of the mental hospital (you can call them whatever you want but that's what they really are) can itself be traumatizing if the patient is not ready to leave yet. The mental hospitals are intense care units, I get that, but if the patient went in for suicide risk, they shouldn't be kicked out after some doctor decides they're no longer at risk of suicide, without making sure the patient has adequate alternatives and future care sorted out. I am very likely here even typing this post only because this wasn't the care procedure 15 years ago. I was given actual therapy during my stay (in addition to the mandatory "enrichment", which was, to be honest, fairly demeaning), future care was sorted so that I even spoke with the person to whose care I would transfer when leaving the hospital, and I was additionally released unto my parents' care (despite being an adult by every age limit on the planet) to make sure I wouldn't have to be alone the first few days. Without all of that, I'm fairly sure I'd have been back there shortly again. And that's a pattern I see happening now, when the "facilities" are hospital wings instead of separate mental hospitals, and where "not a danger to others or themselves" is used, rather than "let's give this patient the kind of care and support that we don't need to see them back here anytime soon".

So please, do not follow the mistakes of RL but instead create something better.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
This video should be seen by all COVID-time Essential Workers out there. And others too, really.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:54 am

Araraukar wrote:
Jedinsto wrote:Gender identity, sexual orientation, political alignment, political beliefs, and religion shall not be considered mental illness.

OOC: But having blonde hair and blue eyes can be, as well as being of a certain ethnicity, I see... I suggest having the boilerplate "or other reductive categorization" or something like that, which is I think in CoCR too.

Individuals possessing mental illness

I really have a problem with this "possessing mental illness" thing. I don't own my bipolar disorder. If anything, it possesses me from time to time, sans meds. Maybe you could use the far more neutral "individuals with mental illness", like in the next one?

Those with mental illness shall not be involuntarily confined to a mental health facility solely for possessing mental illness, unless they pose a direct and imminent threat to themselves or others.

I think you might also want to specify that individuals can refuse all care and treatment, not just in facilities but outpatient programs too, if they are not a danger.

Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients agree to be contacted.

I get that you're coming at this from personal liberties of the patient kind of point, thus thinking this is a good thing, but the receiving of uncensored communication is not necessarily that good. Imagine someone intentionally bullied/tormented on the brink of suicide and then in the safe place - or the place that should be safe - the bully/tormentor is allowed to carry on the campaign of abuse remotely. You might want to at least enable screening of communications for vulnerable individuals. So that malicious communications harmful to the individual's mental balance at not allowed as incoming communications. Possibly outgoing too, if the patient themselves are the bully/harasser. "Monitored" might be a good word to use. It's not censorship, it's intervention in a flammable situation.

The patient being visited is not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the visitor(s), and

Vice versa too!

And I'd clarify that meetings can be monitored if the patient wants them to be. They might not feel safe to meet with family members, for example, if there's been any bad blood between them before. Whether the threat was real or not, it might feel real to the patient.

Being released from the mental health facility as soon as it is safe to do so for the patient as well as society.

Following this guideline is why psychiatric healthcare has in RL Finland gone down the drain in the last decade or so. Please do not implement this WA-wide!

Being thrown out of the mental hospital (you can call them whatever you want but that's what they really are) can itself be traumatizing if the patient is not ready to leave yet. The mental hospitals are intense care units, I get that, but if the patient went in for suicide risk, they shouldn't be kicked out after some doctor decides they're no longer at risk of suicide, without making sure the patient has adequate alternatives and future care sorted out. I am very likely here even typing this post only because this wasn't the care procedure 15 years ago. I was given actual therapy during my stay (in addition to the mandatory "enrichment", which was, to be honest, fairly demeaning), future care was sorted so that I even spoke with the person to whose care I would transfer when leaving the hospital, and I was additionally released unto my parents' care (despite being an adult by every age limit on the planet) to make sure I wouldn't have to be alone the first few days. Without all of that, I'm fairly sure I'd have been back there shortly again. And that's a pattern I see happening now, when the "facilities" are hospital wings instead of separate mental hospitals, and where "not a danger to others or themselves" is used, rather than "let's give this patient the kind of care and support that we don't need to see them back here anytime soon".

So please, do not follow the mistakes of RL but instead create something better.

I like most of these suggestions and will respond to them and implement them when I have the time :)

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 16, 2021 10:17 am

Araraukar wrote:
Jedinsto wrote:Gender identity, sexual orientation, political alignment, political beliefs, and religion shall not be considered mental illness.

OOC: But having blonde hair and blue eyes can be, as well as being of a certain ethnicity, I see... I suggest having the boilerplate "or other reductive categorization" or something like that, which is I think in CoCR too.

Individuals possessing mental illness

I really have a problem with this "possessing mental illness" thing. I don't own my bipolar disorder. If anything, it possesses me from time to time, sans meds. Maybe you could use the far more neutral "individuals with mental illness", like in the next one?

Those with mental illness shall not be involuntarily confined to a mental health facility solely for possessing mental illness, unless they pose a direct and imminent threat to themselves or others.

I think you might also want to specify that individuals can refuse all care and treatment, not just in facilities but outpatient programs too, if they are not a danger.

Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients agree to be contacted.

I get that you're coming at this from personal liberties of the patient kind of point, thus thinking this is a good thing, but the receiving of uncensored communication is not necessarily that good. Imagine someone intentionally bullied/tormented on the brink of suicide and then in the safe place - or the place that should be safe - the bully/tormentor is allowed to carry on the campaign of abuse remotely. You might want to at least enable screening of communications for vulnerable individuals. So that malicious communications harmful to the individual's mental balance at not allowed as incoming communications. Possibly outgoing too, if the patient themselves are the bully/harasser. "Monitored" might be a good word to use. It's not censorship, it's intervention in a flammable situation.

The patient being visited is not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the visitor(s), and

Vice versa too!

And I'd clarify that meetings can be monitored if the patient wants them to be. They might not feel safe to meet with family members, for example, if there's been any bad blood between them before. Whether the threat was real or not, it might feel real to the patient.

Being released from the mental health facility as soon as it is safe to do so for the patient as well as society.

Following this guideline is why psychiatric healthcare has in RL Finland gone down the drain in the last decade or so. Please do not implement this WA-wide!

Being thrown out of the mental hospital (you can call them whatever you want but that's what they really are) can itself be traumatizing if the patient is not ready to leave yet. The mental hospitals are intense care units, I get that, but if the patient went in for suicide risk, they shouldn't be kicked out after some doctor decides they're no longer at risk of suicide, without making sure the patient has adequate alternatives and future care sorted out. I am very likely here even typing this post only because this wasn't the care procedure 15 years ago. I was given actual therapy during my stay (in addition to the mandatory "enrichment", which was, to be honest, fairly demeaning), future care was sorted so that I even spoke with the person to whose care I would transfer when leaving the hospital, and I was additionally released unto my parents' care (despite being an adult by every age limit on the planet) to make sure I wouldn't have to be alone the first few days. Without all of that, I'm fairly sure I'd have been back there shortly again. And that's a pattern I see happening now, when the "facilities" are hospital wings instead of separate mental hospitals, and where "not a danger to others or themselves" is used, rather than "let's give this patient the kind of care and support that we don't need to see them back here anytime soon".

So please, do not follow the mistakes of RL but instead create something better.

Alright, I finally had a chance to make these edits. First off, I actually did include physical characteristics in the clause of what cannot be considered mental illness, until I realized there is absolutely no reasonable nation able to say that certain physical characteristics constitute mental illness.

Second and third done.

Fourth, the "all recipients must agree to be contacted" applied to the patient, too, but I made a clarification just in case. For the next thing, done.

For the last thing, do you think what I put in is adequate?

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16891
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Aug 16, 2021 4:22 pm

"Too much passive voice. Opposed until the grammar improves."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Aug 16, 2021 5:01 pm

I’m making it clear now that I’m going to let Morover continue work on this and possibly submit it with it without my name on it as a co-author.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Sat Nov 12, 2022 10:59 pm

After a brief discussion with Morover, I have revived this draft and will be the primary author of it once again. Unless they request otherwise, Morover will still be listed as a co-author due to their sizeable contributions to this draft.

Bump.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 410
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:57 am

Jedinsto wrote:After a brief discussion with Morover, I have revived this draft and will be the primary author of it once again. Unless they request otherwise, Morover will still be listed as a co-author due to their sizeable contributions to this draft.

Bump.


I will discord you on this
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sun Nov 13, 2022 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
I speak on NS forums in a personal capacity only. (He/Him)

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Tue Nov 15, 2022 4:01 pm

I have determined the category and AoE to be Health: Healthcare, and have changed clause 1 to account for psychosis or related illnesses with religious beliefs being related to the illness.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6967
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:37 pm

“I got a new pen recently, and it boasts a nice shade of purple, which I have used to comment on the draft.” A piece of paper, adorned with violet notes, is slid across the desk. The handwriting is terrible, entirely presented by the scratchy, inconstant writing of the pen. However, with some effort, intelligible comments can be discerned.

Jedinsto wrote:Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the fundamental rights to treatment and care that people with mental illness possess, and the high quality needed in order to administer this care effectively, Is that really multiple rights? It seems to me to be to be one right, split into two different words. Also, the clause reads somewhat oddly to me, in part because all people have a right to treatment and care. It is simply that people with mental illnesses have a more pertinent need to exercise this right. Consider rewording. Also, the second part of that clause sounds strange, because you haven’t stated what needs to be of high quality. The clause is entirely intelligible, but the flow could be improved.

And believing that these rights ought to be upheld by the World Assembly,

Enacts the following provisions into law:

  1. Gender identity, sexual orientation, political alignment or religious beliefs in and of itself shall not be considered mental illness, nor shall any individual possessing these qualities be diagnosed with a mental illness on the basis of these characteristics. That’s more than one item, so you should have, “in and of themselves”, on account of the plurality.
  2. Individuals with mental illness may not be persecuted on the basis of them having said mental illness.
  3. Individuals may not be involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility unless it is an absolute necessity for the health and safety of the patient and/or others, as determined by standards in individual member nations. “As determined by standards” is so vague so as to be useless. It might not be possible to write something less ambiguous, in which case the wording is useless. However, if it is possibly to write something clearer, you should do so.
  4. When possible, steps must be taken to treat a patient without having to admit them to a mental health facility.
  5. Individuals with mental illness shall not be denied access to qualified and appropriate psychiatric care, and any care that they receive shall be free of abuse and exploitation. This presupposes that member states have the financial and logistical ability to provide all individual with qualified and appropriate psychiatric care.
  6. Those with mental illness may refuse all care and treatment including but not limited to confinement to a mental health facility, unless they pose a direct and imminent threat to themselves or others. What about a direct but distant threat? I think that the standard of direct threat is strict enough without reading additional imminency. A threat in the future, provided that the threat is certain or close to certain, is no less of a threat.
  7. The following rights are guaranteed to patients in mental health facilities, and shall be upheld in all member-states:
    1. Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.
    2. Uncensored and daily allowance of visitation, as long as;
      1. The visitor(s) are not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the patient, What if the visitors pose an immediate threat to others, but not the patient? What if the member-state is in a state of quarantine due to a pandemic? The wording of “uncensored” seems far too broad here.
      2. The patient being visited is not determined to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the visitor(s), and
      3. The patient and visitor(s) both freely consent to the visit.
    3. Patients may have their visits monitored by appropriately equipped facility staff at the patient's request or their visitor's request.
    4. Patients must be released from the mental health facility as soon as it is safe to do so for the patient as well as society, and with the patient consenting. Proper psychiatric help will continue to be offered so long as the former patient still requests or requires. “For the patient as well as society” is unnecessary. Safety does not need clarification in the context.
    5. Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals charged with criminal offenses.
  8. Following a patient’s release, efforts must be made by member nations to assimilate the former patient back into society.
  9. All feasible steps to ensure an enjoyable and pleasant atmosphere, including a diversity of activities for both leisure and personal enrichment for all patients, will be taken within all mental health facilities.
  10. Patients are not permitted to be transferred outside of the jurisdiction of the World Assembly for the purposes of bypassing this resolution.

Co-author: Morover


“Overall, I find myself in support of this draft’s concept, but the execution at present is somewhat broad in its approach.”
My pronouns are he/him. I am from the United Kingdom. I enjoy linguistics, law, and LARPing. The fact all three of those begin with the same letter is a coincidence and not a fascination with that grapheme.
Kenmoria is a corporate semi-dystopia where the mechanism of government has been privatised. It nominally has a Parliament, but it exercises no real power. Although the nation has helped to passed six GA resolutions, and been commended by the WA, nobody in Kenmoria knows of the WA’s existence, apart from a select few.

For more information, read the factbook here, though it is slightly inaccurate.

Sir James Lewitt is my character in the General Assembly. He was fired from employment as ambassador by the Kenmorian Government, but still turns up anyway.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:38 pm

Kenmoria wrote:snip

"Your suggestions have been considered and many of them implemented."

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:32 am

"If there are no further comments and suggestions for this draft, it will be submitted to our legislature for approval shortly."

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6967
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:29 am

“I do have some more comments and suggestions. In clause 4, change ‘possible’ to some other word which indicates this also being desirable. It is perfectly possible, in every case, to treat a patient outside of a mental health facility, but this might not be optimal for the patient. Also, in clause 7c, the grammar is odd, because the patient is the one initiating the monitoring at the beginning of the sentence, but either the patient or the visitor can initiate it at the end of the sentence.

Neither of those are flaws that will take much time to fix, and I can see no others at present viewing, so I look forward to recommending a vote in favour of this when it comes to the vote.”
My pronouns are he/him. I am from the United Kingdom. I enjoy linguistics, law, and LARPing. The fact all three of those begin with the same letter is a coincidence and not a fascination with that grapheme.
Kenmoria is a corporate semi-dystopia where the mechanism of government has been privatised. It nominally has a Parliament, but it exercises no real power. Although the nation has helped to passed six GA resolutions, and been commended by the WA, nobody in Kenmoria knows of the WA’s existence, apart from a select few.

For more information, read the factbook here, though it is slightly inaccurate.

Sir James Lewitt is my character in the General Assembly. He was fired from employment as ambassador by the Kenmorian Government, but still turns up anyway.

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:47 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I do have some more comments and suggestions. In clause 4, change ‘possible’ to some other word which indicates this also being desirable. It is perfectly possible, in every case, to treat a patient outside of a mental health facility, but this might not be optimal for the patient. Also, in clause 7c, the grammar is odd, because the patient is the one initiating the monitoring at the beginning of the sentence, but either the patient or the visitor can initiate it at the end of the sentence.

Neither of those are flaws that will take much time to fix, and I can see no others at present viewing, so I look forward to recommending a vote in favour of this when it comes to the vote.”

"Your suggestions have been incorporated.

My delegation appreciates your support."

User avatar
Jedinsto
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1183
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:38 am

This has been submitted.

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Heidgaudr » Sun Dec 04, 2022 9:28 am

Jedinsto wrote:Uncensored communication (and uncensored receiving of communication) from within mental health facilities so long as all recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted.

"I don't think this protects patients nearly as much as you think. It's arguable that most if not all patients at MHFs are not able to give legal consent, thereby this provision does next to nothing."

Jedinsto wrote:Provisions and rights guaranteed within this clause do not necessarily apply to individuals convicted of criminal offenses.

"So an often discriminated against group is explicitly excluded from these protections. That's just... That's just something else. Opposed."
IC comments are from Amb. Asgeir Trelstad unless otherwise stated.
Factbooks: WA Staff | WA Agenda | Government | Religion | Demographics
Resolutions authed: GA#629, GA#638

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anti-void, Comfed, HM Queen Elizabeth III, Kaphellonia, Rubybellia, The Ice States, The Serendipitous, Tuji

Advertisement

Remove ads