[GA, passed] - Education And Availability Of Basic Medical Devices

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Education And Availability Of Basic Medical Devices
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: Walfo | Onsite Topic


The World Assembly,

Concerned that no resolution to ensure that the provision of basic medical devices outside of medical centers exists,

Finding that the general public can provide critical medical assistance in emergencies before the arrival of first responders when they have access to emergency equipment and proper training,

Seeking to set standards for the availability of basic medical devices and the education of the public on the methods necessary to operate basic medical devices and perform basic life support maneuvers,

Hereby,

1. Defines for the purpose of this resolution:

  1. Basic Medical Devices as:
    1. AED (automated external defibrillator) devices,
    2. First Aid kits as devices equipped with the necessary supplies, not including medication, to:
      1. Preserve life when a medical emergency occurs,
      2. Prevent the worsening of a medical emergency,
      3. Aid the recovery of a victim, and
      4. Instruct a user how to use the equipment;
    3. Opiate overdose prevention kits equipped with tools and medications to:
      1. Preserve life when an opiate overdose emergency occurs,
      2. Prevent the worsening of an opiate overdose emergency,
      3. Aid the recovery of a victim,
      4. Block the effects of opioids, and
      5. Instruct a user how to use the equipment;
  2. Basic life support maneuvers as:
    1. CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), and
    2. Abdominal thrust maneuvers;
  3. Public Spaces as buildings and areas that are:
    1. Utilized for exercise or sport,
    2. Highly trafficked or used spaces that are notably larger than what a typical residential (single-family homes) or small commercial space (small retail shops and restaurants) can accommodate,
    3. Workspaces or schools, and
    4. Any WA and member state government buildings;
  4. Victim as a person who has had a medical emergency that requires the usage of a basic medical device or basic life support maneuvers;
2. Requires that member states place basic medical devices in public spaces;

3. Additionally requires that those basic medical devices are:

  1. Placed in public spaces in a number determined by:
    1. The size of the public space, and
    2. The probability of the devices being used more regularly;
  2. Clearly visible to persons within the space by utilizing:
    1. High visibility material,
    2. Signs, and
    3. Placement at a height that the majority of the population can reach;
  3. Accessible to any person at any time without unnecessary burden,
  4. Equipped with systems that prevent the device from being activated for non-medical scenarios,
  5. Inspected a minimum of once a month for maintenance problems or missing parts, and
  6. Kept clean and sanitized at all times;


4. Mandates that member states prescribe a curriculum for their students, in a manner appropriate to said students' age, with an understanding of the following to the point that students can perform life-saving measures themselves:

  1. How to properly operate basic medical devices and their contents,
  2. The general location of basic medical devices, and
  3. Generally how to perform basic life support maneuvers effectively and safely;
5. Instructs the World Assembly General Fund to assist member states who cannot afford the purchasing, installation within public spaces, and maintenance of basic medical devices through subsidization, which cannot be used by a member state for any purpose other than funding the acquisition, installation, or maintenance of basic medical devices; nor may any member state attempt to circumvent this requirement through the diversion of existing funds that would otherwise be used to acquire, install, or maintain basic medical devices;

6. Tasks the WHA (World Heath Authority) with approving all requests for such subsidization, where on the balance of probabilities, the risk of serious injury and harm to persons would, if not for such subsidization, be more likely than not in the case of a medical emergency; and

7. Additionally tasks the WHA with advising member states with institutionally improving their medical device and pharmaceutical industries, so that nations may be less vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions for critical medical supplies.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


ForAgainstAbstainPresent
6201
 
Last edited:
Overview
Education and Availability of Basic Medical Devices is a proposal that, as the name suggests, aims to ensure that the public is able, both in terms of knowledge and in terms of resources, to perform basic first aid. The proposal requires that, in public spaces, such devices as AEDs, opiate overdose prevention kits, and first aid kits are available. It also requires that member-nations educate their students in how to use these devices, through national curricula. Finally, the proposal creates mandates for the World Assembly General Fund and World Health Authority to assist member-nations in serving this common good.

Recommendation
The definitions of this proposal are unusually well-worded, and they accurately capture the ideal contents of basic medical devices and a rudimentary medical education. Its mandates are not too overbearing, containing language that allows some discretion pursuant to definitional interpretation. However, they are not too weak either. There is mandatory force to the proposal’s clauses. This proposal has a clear, international goal, and it accomplishes this goal very proficiently.

Thus, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the GA proposal at vote, "Education and Availability of Basic Medical Devices".
 
Last edited:
I am in favour of this proposal. It is a sensible measure to standardise the provision of medical equipment across the World Assembly. Although it is slightly more granular in its detailing than most resolutions, this does not seem to cause any problems, due to common-sense restraint in choosing where to place regulations. I find that this is well-written, and I can see in the draft the cumulative polishing of many months of drafting.
 
For.

One question though is whether there is another previously passed or pending resolution regarding Good Samaritan issues of people using the Basic Medical Devices or Basic Life Support Maneuvers. This proposal is a good one and should be supported but just wondering if that issue has been thought of/addressed.
 
Present

There are some minor drafting issues here that cause some issues (improper capitalisation being one, where "public spaces" could be interpreted as not referring to the defined "Public Spaces", etc.), as well as some questionably-implementable ("prevent the device from being activated for non-medical scenarios"?) and over-specific ("once a month", instead of just "as necessary" or similar) clauses. The idea of education on how to use the devices is a good consideration, but apparently does not include requirements on the usability of the devices themselves, which is a common concern.

One question though is whether there is another previously passed or pending resolution regarding Good Samaritan issues of people using the Basic Medical Devices or Basic Life Support Maneuvers.

Would you care to clarify what this means?
 
For.

One question though is whether there is another previously passed or pending resolution regarding Good Samaritan issues of people using the Basic Medical Devices or Basic Life Support Maneuvers. This proposal is a good one and should be supported but just wondering if that issue has been thought of/addressed.

No, so if you use the AED wrong and kill someone, you get might sued for involuntary manslaughter. So it'd depend on local laws and RNT, intent etc.

It crossed my mind but I don't want to touch the subject, because at the moment under GA (as in real life), if a diplomat kills someone through careless driving, that cannot be a criminal offence. So you would have to exempt diplomats and all that.
 
Would you care to clarify what this means?

As @Simone mentioned after your comment, there are some areas where there are Good Samaritan Laws, meaning that if you attempt to save someone's life with CPR or an AED or other basic life support maneuvers, and you accidentally make a mistake and the person sustains an injury (e.g. broken ribs from CPR) or dies, you cannot be held liable for your actions criminally or civilly.

No, so if you use the AED wrong and kill someone, you get might sued for involuntary manslaughter. So it'd depend on local laws and RNT, intent etc.

It crossed my mind but I don't want to touch the subject, because at the moment under GA (as in real life), if a diplomat kills someone through careless driving, that cannot be a criminal offence. So you would have to exempt diplomats and all that.

Understood on the reasoning. I know in my Jurisdiction they have the Good Samaritan provisions to encourage people to try and save the person instead of fearing a lawsuit after, but I get why you stayed away from it here and still think it's a very good proposal.
 
As @Simone mentioned after your comment, there are some areas where there are Good Samaritan Laws, meaning that if you attempt to save someone's life with CPR or an AED or other basic life support maneuvers, and you accidentally make a mistake and the person sustains an injury (e.g. broken ribs from CPR) or dies, you cannot be held liable for your actions criminally or civilly.

I don't believe that this is something that could be (or regardless ought to be) regulated by the GA. In addition to the concerns listed by Simone with regards to diplomatic immunity, there just generally exists a large amount of variation in how this is handled. Consider the hypothetical clause:

...mandates that nations maintain immunity for legitimate and reasonable users of Basic Medical Devices from prosecution or legal action arising their mis/use of such Devices...

I've tried to word this as charitably as possible, and even then ended up with the GA's favourite weasel words "legitimate" and "reasonable" (yet another measly essay waiting to be written on those) in order to exclude deliberate/malicious misuse of the devices. There are additional issues such as a the role of the manufacturer in case of deficiencies in the device's functionality or usability which is particularly difficult to test (what extent is "reasonable" here; surely nothing can be made totally fool-proof?). This is excluding any issues specific to certain cultures or jurisdictions. Overall, I find attempting to include something like this a rather costly folly that would certainly at least complicate the resolution beyond what ought to be necessary: in the case where the status quo can be maintained without issue (that locally-sensible local legislation applies), that is probably the best option.
 
Hello all! Happy to answer any questions on my resolution!
Questionably-implementable ("prevent the device from being activated for non-medical scenarios"?)
This is a simple (already in AED's IRL) piece of technology. It is a part of the AED system, as it must measure how much voltage the shock must be to have the greatest chance of restarting the heart. If the AED detects that the heart is still beating, or would not require a shock, it states "Shock not advised" and does not emit any electricity.
Apparently does not include requirements on the usability of the devices themselves, which is a common concern.
Clause 3 explicitly addresses the usability of basic medical devices, ensuring that they are not only present in public spaces but are also accessible and user-friendly. AED devices are built with an automated dialogue that instructs the user how to operate the device ensuring that anyone can use them. For other basic medical devices, the 1st clause requires the placement of instructions for each piece of equipment.
 
This is a simple (already in AED's IRL) piece of technology. It is a part of the AED system, as it must measure how much voltage the shock must be to have the greatest chance of restarting the heart. If the AED detects that the heart is still beating, or would not require a shock, it states "Shock not advised" and does not emit any electricity.

I'm well familiar with this functionality, but that could hardly be called a "non-medical scenario"—perhaps "from being activated in cases where the device ought not to be used" would be better—and I had assumed that you meant the device had to somehow prevent (criminal) misuse for a non-medical activity. If a patient has collapsed for some reason, the fact that an AED (or any other Basic Medical Device) would not help does not make it a "non-medical scenario".

AED devices are built with an automated dialogue that instructs the user how to operate the device ensuring that anyone can use them.

Again, I'm very much familiar with this, which is why I mentioned it. The fact that it exists does not magically transplant it into your resolution as a binding clause.

Clause 3 explicitly addresses the usability of basic medical devices, ensuring that they are not only present in public spaces but are also accessible and user-friendly.

I'm not sure what "clause 3" you're looking it, because I certainly can't see any concerns about user-friendliness included "explicitly". If you're referring to:

c. Accessible to any person at any time without unnecessary burden, ...

I can hardly see how that addresses usability concerns, since the surrounding context implies "accessible" to mean literal ability to physically reach the device.
 
I'm rather disappointed by the lack of comment, especially considering the nature of your initial response. I hope the double-post can be excused, considering the intervening timeframe.
 
Education and Availability of Basic Medical Devices was passed 11,034 votes to 1,233.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top