[AT VOTE] Rights Of The Quarantined [Complete]

Abbey

TNPer
Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: Umeria
Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Understanding that there are many communicable diseases which spread easily if they are not treated hastily;

Noting that there are times when some communicable diseases cannot be treated hastily;

Realizing that such diseases should instead be promptly contained to prevent an international epidemic;

Recognizing that in order to efficiently contain a disease, drastic measures are sometimes necessary;

Further understanding that in those cases, individual rights are often subverted in order to efficiently contain the disease;

Further noting that there are nations that take this subversion too far, and oppress their citizens in the name of disease control;

Wishing to ensure that every victim of an epidemic, even those in nations otherwise unable to promptly contain an outbreak, is safely quarantined without any unnecessary impingement of basic rights;

Hereby

1) Tasks the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center to define as a "serious disease" any disease which is harmful and contagious enough to create the need of a quarantine in the case of an outbreak of the disease;

2) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
  • an "epidemic" as a time, in a nation, when there are enough people with the same serious disease(as defined by the EPARC) to be clearly in excess of the normal expectancy;
  • an "infected person" as any person with a serious disease in a nation undergoing an epidemic of that disease;
  • a "quarantine" as any area where infected persons are kept in isolation in order to halt the spread of the disease;
  • a "treatment" as any action done to an infected person with the purpose of:
    • curing the infected person;
    • rendering the infected person non-contagious;
    • ensuring the infected person does not undergo any unnecessary harm; and/or
    • ensuring the infected person is not deprived of any necessities a non-infected person would normally receive;
3) Recommends that all member nations, in the event of an epidemic in their nation, screen for any infected persons in that nation not yet known to be infected;

4) Requires that all member nations, to the best of their capability:
  • create at least one quarantine per epidemic in the nation;
  • move all infected persons into the appropriate quarantine that is nearest to their current location;
  • provide every treatment to all infected persons that are in a quarantine while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected;
  • move anyone that ceases to be an infected person out of the quarantine;
  • disband all quarantines of a certain epidemic when the epidemic ends; and
5) Mandates that the EPARC cover the costs of the requirements in clause 4 for any member nation that has difficulty maintaining quarantines;

6) Establishes a medical ethics board within the EPARC, tasking it to:
  • review matters of necessity and promulgation within quarantines;
  • ensure that such matters are handled with proper consideration of the infected person's well-being;
  • ensure that infected individuals are treated fairly with regards to individual freedom and dignity; and
7) Urges that member nations provide infected persons with comfort and security, to help them recover from their unfortunate situation.

Please vote for, against, abstain, or present.

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2016_11_28_rights_of_the_quarantined[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2016_11_28_rights_of_the_quarantined[/wavote]
 
MoWAA Recommendation:

The resolution is a resubmission of Quarantine Regulation (GA #385), which was repealed by its author in GA #387. The new resolution adds an ethics board, but the rest of the operative clauses remain effectively unchanged, and does not address all of the concerns the original author raised in the repeal of GA #385. We supported repealing GA #385 because it burdened nations with mandates that did not consider their own principles and existing healthcare systems, and this new resolution does not address the concerns raised in our recommendation for the repeal.

Additionally, the new resolution only addresses those who are confirmed to be infected and sick, who should be isolated. It does not address those who may have been exposed to disease and need to be quarantined to see if they become sick.

Regulating the specific actions a nation must take in the event of an outbreak is best left to that nation's government, but should the World Assembly decide to regulate this matter, the resolution should cover all possibilities.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs encourages a vote against this resolution.
 
Against. Sil Dorsett makes a good point, using the Center for Disease Control's website:

Isolation separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick.

Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.
 
I'll elaborate on the point that Ash posted on my behalf. Yes, I did reference the CDC website for some guidance on this resolution, and it brought up a valid point that leads to my objection.

1. I understand that the use of the term "quarantine" is heavily generalized in this write-up, considering the character limit of resolutions, but there's actually a difference between "quarantine" and "isolation". As stated in Ash's post, Quarantine is used to restrict the movement of people who may have been exposed to an infectious disease. If a person shows signs that they were indeed infected and have gotten sick they are moved to isolation. The resolution doesn't mention anything about those who have been exposed. It only requires actions to be taken on infected sick persons, leaving the exposed, possibly infected, and potentially contagious still out in public. Thus, the actions required by the resolution are insufficient to control an outbreak.

2. We must also consider the reason we recommended a repeal of the original resolution. Other than the fact that the author asked for it, we also considered the fact that, as Pallaith put it in the repeal recommendation, "the resolution overburdens nations by trying to do too much without regard for the most effective way each individual nation could apply its principles." This leads to point three.

3. The changes from Quarantine Regulation are really minor. Other than a slight redefinition of an epidemic and an new ethics clause, the resolution is about the same as it was before. Only the preamble had significant changes to stress the importance of not infringing on basic rights, but the operative clauses don't reflect it. My guess is that the repeal was only strongly worded to get the original off the books. The new resolution does not adequately address the written reasons for the repeal.

That being said, my vote, if you couldn't tell by now, is...

Against
 
A bit surprised by this one, but based on the fact that we did recommend repeal based on factors that have not really been addressed, my vote is Against.
 
It is probably unwise to implement regulations of this specificty to deal with the wide variety of possible diseases and public health contingencies.

The proposed legislation also does not account for the variations, disparities and peculiarities of the public/private healthcare systems in various WA member nations.

Against.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Back
Top