[DRAFT] Vaccinations Act

Current working title: Public Health (Vaccinations) Act
Whereas it is an important matter of public health that persons be protected from the scourge of disease that may painfully kill, maim, paralyse, or cause harm of some manner or another:

And whereas the right to believe empirically incorrect information does not extend to harming others:

Now, therefore, be it enacted by the World Assembly, as follows:
  1. Member nations shall require that all persons be vaccinated, given safe administration and evaluation of opportunity costs thereof, in a timely manner against any disease
    • to which the general public may reasonably be exposed and
    • is sufficiently infectious and virulent so as to threaten public health.
  2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1, members will grant exceptions given
    • force majeure, provision of which shall be retrospective,
    • a valid medical reason to exempt, or
    • a conscientious objection, provided that those to which the exception is applied:
      • agree to be liable for such externalities that may arise from their decision, without limitations; and
      • belong to a registered group whose leadership or corporate body has formally filed a petition to the government stating and justifying, in the view of the government, the nature of their conscientious objection.
  3. Member nations and their governmental subdivisions shall not make transfer payments or provide inessential services, except where otherwise required by World Assembly law, to persons or the parents of minors who refuse to comply with the first and second sections of this Act.
  4. Members are permitted to pass further legislation to limit the spread of disease by unvaccinated persons, including but not limited to restrictions on school enrolment or provision of medical quarantine on travellers.
  5. Point of service costs for vaccines administered under section 1 shall not exceed minimal expense.
 

Rocketdog

A rocket has landed. A dog is inside.
-
-
-
-
I do like the proposal but there is one issue I have. If there is an outbreak of a deadly disease but is very uncommon like Ebola which would fall under section 1. This, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case due to the insignificance of these viruses in some countries more than other.
 

Sil Dorsett

0.00 g/dL
-
-
-
-
-
Malayan Singapura:
God No. Just NO.
Not helpful, Singapura. Perhaps you should explain why you don't like it.

Now allow me to voice my opposition to part of the proposal with a reason. Article 3 of the proposal, to me, has a major defect, as you've put state governments in a moral dilemma of being unable to provide assistance for citizens in a time of hardship for being out of compliance even if the government ordinarily would allow it. It's a little better than the original clause 3 you had, seeing as it now says "inessential services," but what are those? Are food stamps an "essential service?"

I think clause three could be loosened up a bit to just read as follows:
3. Member nations are encouraged to pass legislation to limit the spread of disease by unvaccinated persons, including but not limited to restrictions on school enrollment.

One thing that I would recommend adding to the resolution, as long as it's not in conflict with a past resolution (I'm not sure, I'm out of time to review them), is a clause that encourages nations to restrict immigration based on vaccination records. The game Papers, Please had an example of this where there was a rule that no person could enter Arstotzka if they did not have a valid Polio vaccine. I think that would be a reasonable addition.
 
Sorry Sil dorsett. Ok here is why I say Nay. Here is a true story explaining why. I have an elder brother and a twin. We all were considered normal till 2003, during the Singaporean SARs outbreak. We each got 10 vaccine. My twin and I got autism but my elder brother remaine normal. This is one reason.

However… I am in favour of the free healthcare service bit. Perhaps you can try considering other forms of immunisation not involving needles and syringes to try and avoid high possibility of children getting brain development problems.
 
Brend0g:
I do like the proposal but there is one issue I have. If there is an outbreak of a deadly disease but is very uncommon like Ebola which would fall under section 1. This, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case due to the insignificance of these viruses in some countries more than other.
I think the requirements outlined are reasonable. If there is a disease that is dangerous to public health, it should be vaccinated against. If it doesn't actually threaten public health, then no need to require vaccinations for it.

The problem with this resolution is that it only require newborns to get vaccinated. If only newborns are getting vaccinated, it isn't that helpful. That should be fixed.
 
Edits made.

I'm going to ignore the unsubstantiated claims made that vaccines cause autism. They don't. However, the provision of certain unsanitary needles or unsterile liquids would be problematic. Edits have been made to include an explicit 'given safe administration thereof' in section 1, even though that falls into the section 2(b) exception.

Further powers are delegated to nations, per Sil Dorsett's request, to 'Members are permitted to pass further legislation to limit the spread of disease by unvaccinated persons, including but not limited to restrictions on school enrolment or provision of medical quarantine on travellers'. I can easily add a 'subject to prior legislation' clause there.
 

Sil Dorsett

0.00 g/dL
-
-
-
-
-
enrolment -> enrollment

So, my concern with clause 3 isn't going to be addressed? I can't think of an RL scenario where the United Nations mandated that national governments withhold services to their citizens for any reason. Can you provide an example of this? Maybe the European Union does something similar, but what does the World Assembly simulate?
 
Sil Dorsett:
enrolment -> enrollment

So, my concern with clause 3 isn't going to be addressed? I can't think of an RL scenario where the United Nations mandated that national governments withhold services to their citizens for any reason. Can you provide an example of this? Maybe the European Union does something similar, but what does the World Assembly simulate?
I think the best solution is for the resolution to define what is considered an "essential service." It doesn't remove the pressure on parents to get vaccinated that this proposal has, while clearly defining the limits that a government could go to, so that they can't deny a parent from basically living if they don't get vaccinated.
 
Sil Dorsett:
enrolment -> enrollment
Commonwealth English uses enrolment.

Sil Dorsett:
So, my concern with clause 3 isn't going to be addressed? I can't think of an RL scenario where the United Nations mandated that national governments withhold services to their citizens for any reason. Can you provide an example of this? Maybe the European Union does something similar, but what does the World Assembly simulate?
The mandate is primarily based off Australia's very similar requirements. The exception regarding section 3 has been expanded in that the services still provided are those services mandated by WA law and essential services (of course, different nations will have different ideas of what counts as 'essential').

Also, the clause has been expanded not only to apply to parents, but rather, to apply to persons and parents of minors.
 

Sil Dorsett

0.00 g/dL
-
-
-
-
-
huh... learn something new every day. http://grammarist.com/spelling/enrol-enroll/. I thought it was a typo.

So the example provided to back clause 3 is a single nation's requirements. Are there examples of a supranational organization mandating the same? I still don't see how the WA (and the RL UN) could have the authority to tell member nations to withhold government services. That seems like an incredible overreach and one that'll get a lot of heat from the NatSovs. I think my recommendation for clause 3 would reaffirm the NatSov position of member nations being in charge of determining penalties for noncompliance while maintaining the IntFed-favoring vaccination requirement overall.
 

Rocketdog

A rocket has landed. A dog is inside.
-
-
-
-
"first and section sections of this Act."
I dont get the wording. Is it a typo?
 
Sil Dorsett:
Are there examples of a supranational organization mandating the same?
Not really, because most supranational organisations in the real world are extremely weak.

Sil Dorsett:
I still don't see how the WA (and the RL UN) could have the authority to tell member nations to withhold government services.
The UN certainly does not have the authority. But in WA law, the World Assembly has plenary authority. The question is not whether the WA has the power (unless the WA has explicitly stated that it does not), but rather, whether the WA should use the power.

Sil Dorsett:
That seems like an incredible overreach and one that'll get a lot of heat from the NatSovs.
Honestly, it seems to me that most NatSovs are basically isolationists or role-play governments who don't want to pay for anything if they can get away with it. This would be such a provision. However, I do realise that it is a somewhat controversial position. Fortunately, it is not courageous.

Sil Dorsett:
I think my recommendation for clause 3 would reaffirm the NatSov position of member nations being in charge of determining penalties for noncompliance while maintaining the IntFed-favoring vaccination requirement overall.
Your recommendation has been moved to section 4 and expanded to explicitly give member nations the authority to pass laws to limit exposure.
 

Flakey

TNPer
I support the vaccinations act as vaccinations are a cost-effective and scientifically proven way to rid ourselves of diseases.
 

Sil Dorsett

0.00 g/dL
-
-
-
-
-
Imperium Anglorum:
Sil Dorsett:
I think my recommendation for clause 3 would reaffirm the NatSov position of member nations being in charge of determining penalties for noncompliance while maintaining the IntFed-favoring vaccination requirement overall.
Your recommendation has been moved to section 4 and expanded to explicitly give member nations the authority to pass laws to limit exposure.
Just to clarify, my recommendation for clause 3 was not the Arstotzka example, it was the removal of the mandate that governments withhold services for those non-compliant with the vaccination program. The threat an unvaccinated person poses to the general population is mitigated by the rest of the population being vaccinated. Being at least highly resistant if not immune to a disease should be motivation enough to get the vaccine.

I'm gonna fight that mandate tooth and nail until it's removed, and I have to do it now because the only repeal argument I would have is NatSov-only (against the rules). If the resolution makes it to the voting floor with clause 3 in it, my vote will be against, which is a real shame because I like the rest of it.

Sil Dorsett:
I still don't see how the WA (and the RL UN) could have the authority to tell member nations to withhold government services.
The UN certainly does not have the authority. But in WA law, the World Assembly has plenary authority. The question is not whether the WA has the power (unless the WA has explicitly stated that it does not), but rather, whether the WA should use the power.

And this is where things are going to get interesting, I think. We just have two different opinions on it, that's all. Let's see which side of the fence the others line up on.

I think this is ready for the NS board for official drafting and debate.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Just to clarify, my recommendation for clause 3 was not the Arstotzka example, it was the removal of the mandate that governments withhold services for those non-compliant with the vaccination program.
Why would it be more efficacious if the enforcement particulars were delegated to member nations? There are no restrictions on further disincentives, naught for the back-pedalling on a disincentive at this level. Personally, I find it mild already – I would say that all services including fire, police, etc. ought be discontinued – but that probably violates some WA law somewhere.

Sil Dorsett:
The threat an unvaccinated person poses to the general population is mitigated by the rest of the population being vaccinated. Being at least highly resistant if not immune to a disease should be motivation enough to get the vaccine.
Yes, but what about herd immunity and those who cannot get a vaccine? Or those who have not seen disease sweep through the community in so long that they have lost intuitive knowledge between vaccine administration and immunity?

Sil Dorsett:
I'm gonna fight that mandate tooth and nail until it's removed,
Why? It isn't like disease is only a matter for one nation. Diseases spread irrespective of national boundaries (unless, of course, those frontiers are manned with troops and biohazard units).
 
Thanks to IA for the head's up that discussion on this was on-going. Immunization is one topic that I'm fairly passionate about IRL - and I've had debates/discussions with many people regarding vaccination over my years as a pharmacist. A few general points for consideration - and bear in mind that I'm totally out of date with GA law, so if something is already covered or accounted for elsewhere, my apologies.

1) Category/Strength? :P

2) Vaccines aren't free, and unless there's a Universal Health Insurance resolution that provides preventative care for free, there should be something to ensure that mandated health services (i.e. vaccines) are affordable for those that will be required to get them in order to be enrolled in school, etc. At minimum, a clause clarifying that individuals/families can apply for financial hardship to receive subsidies for the vaccine. Vaccines are very cost effective, as effective vaccines ensure that (1) fewer people get sick (so less $$ is spent on doctor/hospital and treatment), (2) fewer days lost at work/school (if people don't get sick, they are able to attend school and continue to be productive members of the work force), and (3) fewer people die (saved costs for funerals, burials, etc.). 5 might cover this, but it's strangely worded, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by most of that. :P

3) I would suggest considering some stipulations regarding certification of vaccines (i.e. so I can't mix dirt and water and call it a vaccine against cooties and mandate my nation administer it) and also perhaps some shared intelligence/research regarding already existing vaccines. May also be worth encouraging funding/research into new vaccines for emerging diseases or existing diseases that don't currently have vaccines. It may also be worthwhile to require certification for individuals to administrate or that Blood Borne Pathogens Procedures be followed to minimize the risk of spreading other diseases due to improper administration technique.

4) I would suggest rolling Item 3 into Item 4. I get your point - money makes people comply a hell of a lot faster than regulations do - however, I expect you'll get a lot of pushback publicly. Plus, the NatSov in me says that if a nation wants to limit payments due to a lack of vaccination, they absolutely should be able to, but that should be their call and not the WA's.

**

Looking through the comments made by others:

5) Re: Section 1, Brend0g made a reference to ebola. It may be worth clarifying, somehow, that individuals that are in higher risk professions (i.e. medical) may be required to receive additional vaccines for employment, which may be mandated by either the government or their employer. (i.e. around here, it's not uncommon for some health care systems to require all employees to receive a flu shot by date X or provide documentation that it would be medically unsafe for them to receive one) Ebola was not an actual risk to 99.9% of the people in the US, despite all of the drama and excitement on cable news. Vaccinating the 300-some million people with the ebola vaccine would have been, frankly, a waste of money. Those that worked in hospitals - particularly in the Ebola Treatment Centers - should consider becoming vaccinated, should a vaccine prove effective. Those in nations with widespread ebola outbreaks should consider becoming vaccinated.

I think your current draft addresses this adequately, but it may be worth revision Section 4 slightly, to allow nations to prohibit individuals who have not received Vaccine X from entering their country. Quarantine is used to determine if an individual who has been exposed will become ill. IRL, individuals who travel to certain countries where Yellow Fever is prevalent are required to have the Yellow Fever vaccine prior to entering the country. (WHO Reference) If you're coming from a Yellow Fever country, you are often required to have had the vaccine to go elsewhere. However, if you're going to a country with outbreaks of Yellow Fever, it is recommended IRL that you get the vaccine prior to arrival. If you arrive unvaccinated, you may catch the disease while you are traveling and then proceed to spread said disease further within your destination country and possibly bring it back home with you. I'm rambling, but updating that section further for travel purposes would probably be good.

6) @Mystery Player - most vaccines exist because of a risk to public health somewhere in the world. The only example I can think of where you could plausibly argue that there's no "public health benefit" (outside of protection for the individual being vaccinated) is the Shingles vaccine, as you can't catch Shingles from Shingles. However, you can catch Chicken Pox from someone who has an active Shingles outbreak. Whether you're preventing a viral disease or cancer, vaccines are created with the aim of improving overall public health.

7) Re: the item I already covered in #4, I see you guys argued against this too. It's a sticking point for me, and as much as I love vaccinations, I'm likely to vote against and encourage a vote against in Europeia if that clause stays as is. It is very possible to write NatSov friendly health care legislation that is effective and popular. See ... a bunch of things I've written. To disclaim an argument because it's a NatSov argument is lazy. If you want to argue for more WA mandates because it's how you think things should go, do so. Don't critique NatSovs just because you don't happen to agree with their approach. Argue against the argument - not the philosophy. :P

8) "Yes, but what about herd immunity and those who cannot get a vaccine? Or those who have not seen disease sweep through the community in so long that they have lost intuitive knowledge between vaccine administration and immunity?"
There have been studies showing that the best way to persuade people to get vaccinated is to tell them what might happen to them/their kids if they don't get vaccinated. (Reference) I would much rather see a promotion of educational materials and training for doctors, nurses, etc., on how to best convince Anti-Vaxxers that vaccines are in their best interest. If nations want to go the extra step to restrict services, etc., they can - but I think that should be decided by the individual nation and not by the WA as a whole.
 

Watchmanz

TNPer
In my view, compulsory vaccination of a population is detrimental to the overriding principles of civil rights. Vaccines can cause harm, and compulsory administration equates to the state forcing harm on a citizen. That flies in the face of basic democratic principles. I would never support such a proposal.

I believe that education is the way to increase vaccination rates. Increasing the knowledge of a population is beneficial and still allows each member of the population their civil rights.
 

Flakey

TNPer
Watchmanz:
In my view, compulsory vaccination of a population is detrimental to the overriding principles of civil rights. Vaccines can cause harm, and compulsory administration equates to the state forcing harm on a citizen. That flies in the face of basic democratic principles. I would never support such a proposal.

I believe that education is the way to increase vaccination rates. Increasing the knowledge of a population is beneficial and still allows each member of the population their civil rights.
So, if you belive compulsory vaccination is against basic Civil Rights, you would also belive Compulsory Democracy would also override Civil Rights? I belive that Compulsory vaccinations will make the populations of a nation less detremental to diseases. The reason nation states in Africa and Southern America are so prone to disease is that these nations do not have any or little access to vaccines or medicines.
 
Watchmanz:
In my view, compulsory vaccination of a population is detrimental to the overriding principles of civil rights. Vaccines can cause harm, and compulsory administration equates to the state forcing harm on a citizen. That flies in the face of basic democratic principles. I would never support such a proposal.

I believe that education is the way to increase vaccination rates. Increasing the knowledge of a population is beneficial and still allows each member of the population their civil rights.
When you say "vaccines can cause harm" ... what do you mean? A little pain when the needle goes into your arm? Side effects like pain or discomfort for a day or two afterwards? Those are actual "harms" but are offset, in my professional medical opinion (I have a Doctoral degree IRL), by the public health benefit. The public health benefits outweigh your civil rights, unless you can document that you have a medical reason to not receive a given vaccine.

If you're talking about one of the many debunked vaccine myths, I have some reading material for you. You talk about education being the way forward. Educate yourself, and ask questions if you have additional ones. Don't rely on false information and not expect to be called to account for a lack of facts in your statements.
 
Mousebumples:
1) Category/Strength? :P
Health: Healthcare.

Mousebumples:
2) Vaccines aren't free, and unless there's a Universal Health Insurance resolution that provides preventative care for free, there should be something to ensure that mandated health services (i.e. vaccines) are affordable for those that will be required to get them in order to be enrolled in school, etc. At minimum, a clause clarifying that individuals/families can apply for financial hardship to receive subsidies for the vaccine. Vaccines are very cost effective, as effective vaccines ensure that (1) fewer people get sick (so less $$ is spent on doctor/hospital and treatment), (2) fewer days lost at work/school (if people don't get sick, they are able to attend school and continue to be productive members of the work force), and (3) fewer people die (saved costs for funerals, burials, etc.). 5 might cover this, but it's strangely worded, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by most of that. :P
Clause 5 states that the mandatory vaccinations cannot be provided beyond minimal expense to the end-user.

Mousebumples:
3) I would suggest considering some stipulations regarding certification of vaccines (i.e. so I can't mix dirt and water and call it a vaccine against cooties and mandate my nation administer it) and also perhaps some shared intelligence/research regarding already existing vaccines. May also be worth encouraging funding/research into new vaccines for emerging diseases or existing diseases that don't currently have vaccines. It may also be worthwhile to require certification for individuals to administrate or that Blood Borne Pathogens Procedures be followed to minimize the risk of spreading other diseases due to improper administration technique.
Would not this fall into the safe administration requirements in section 1?
 
V

vashnis

Guest
Although it is regrettable that some individuals refuse to let their children be vaccinated, as someone who has never received a vaccination in my life (and who is in no great rush to get them) I must disagree with this proposal. Bodily sovereignty is not something that the world assembly should be infringing upon, especially with such dire threats such as the threat of the denial of an equal education to unvaccinated children. Furthermore, it is not appropriate for a state to be mandated to cease provision of what are loosely defined as 'inessential services,' the provision of which should be left up to the individual states.

((this is my first post in this subforum, and my WA nation doesn't live here. Sorry if I did it wrong.))
 
Imperium Anglorum:
Mousebumples:
1) Category/Strength? :P
Health: Healthcare.

Mousebumples:
2) Vaccines aren't free, and unless there's a Universal Health Insurance resolution that provides preventative care for free, there should be something to ensure that mandated health services (i.e. vaccines) are affordable for those that will be required to get them in order to be enrolled in school, etc. At minimum, a clause clarifying that individuals/families can apply for financial hardship to receive subsidies for the vaccine. Vaccines are very cost effective, as effective vaccines ensure that (1) fewer people get sick (so less $$ is spent on doctor/hospital and treatment), (2) fewer days lost at work/school (if people don't get sick, they are able to attend school and continue to be productive members of the work force), and (3) fewer people die (saved costs for funerals, burials, etc.). 5 might cover this, but it's strangely worded, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by most of that. :P
Clause 5 states that the mandatory vaccinations cannot be provided beyond minimal expense to the end-user.

Mousebumples:
3) I would suggest considering some stipulations regarding certification of vaccines (i.e. so I can't mix dirt and water and call it a vaccine against cooties and mandate my nation administer it) and also perhaps some shared intelligence/research regarding already existing vaccines. May also be worth encouraging funding/research into new vaccines for emerging diseases or existing diseases that don't currently have vaccines. It may also be worthwhile to require certification for individuals to administrate or that Blood Borne Pathogens Procedures be followed to minimize the risk of spreading other diseases due to improper administration technique.
Would not this fall into the safe administration requirements in section 1?
Point of service costs for vaccines administered under section 1 shall not be provided beyond minimal expense.
This might be a cultural/language barrier thing to me, but "shall not be provided" means that the government will not be paying for them? This wording is wonky and isn't at all clear with regards to what you apparently want it to say ... ??

Re: Safe Administration, just because something is safe to administer (i.e. Normal Saline) doesn't mean that it's effective or worthwhile to mandate on a such a wide scale. (regarding certification of vaccines) Arguably, safe administration may just cover the recipient and not the individual doing the administering themselves.
 
Hmm... I've changed the wording of the 'point of service costs' clause to be more clear. However, I'm somewhat unclear on exactly how to phrase something regarding safe administration. Currently, I've amended it to read 'given safe administration and evaluation of opportunity costs', which would account for problems vis-à-vis large administration itself.
 

Sanctaria

TNPer
-
I'm definitely supportive of a resolution like this - but am at work so can't give you feedback just yet. I'll have something tonight.
 

Darcania

kul Seredrau
-
[class=administrator]makris, I have given you yet another warning for spam. Please keep on-topic and please don't post random large pictures / Wikipedia articles.[/class]
 

HuAt

TNPer
There's not much that I see here that I would change. When I get the chance tonight, I'll offer an edit or two but all-in-all I think its good or at least on track.
 
C

Chancellor Erichthonius

Guest
Unless I missed it, because I'm only one month into this, I think that this is ready for proposal to the GA. I'm in full support of this legislation.
 
C

Chancellor Erichthonius

Guest
vashnis:
Although it is regrettable that some individuals refuse to let their children be vaccinated, as someone who has never received a vaccination in my life (and who is in no great rush to get them) I must disagree with this proposal. Bodily sovereignty is not something that the world assembly should be infringing upon, especially with such dire threats such as the threat of the denial of an equal education to unvaccinated children. Furthermore, it is not appropriate for a state to be mandated to cease provision of what are loosely defined as 'inessential services,' the provision of which should be left up to the individual states.

((this is my first post in this subforum, and my WA nation doesn't live here. Sorry if I did it wrong.))
This would be where the conscientious objector part comes in...and where the member nations can withhold certain services like enrollment in public schools, restrict travel, etc. If a citizen doesn't want the vaccination then object but don't be surprised when certain services are withheld.

The more I think about it, I do think a stipulation needs to be added preventing public safety services (fire, police, etc.) from being withheld. That said, I would still vote in favor of this if it moved to vote in the GA.
 
Top