[GA, Passed] Freedom To Seek Medical Care [Complete]

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett

ga.jpg

Freedom To Seek Medical Care
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: New Waldensia | Onsite Topic


Believing that individuals possess an inalienable right to seek medical care of their own accord and at their own expense, above and beyond that which may be provided for them by their government or by their nation's laws,

Understanding that medical treatment is a complex issue and requires great care, and that health-care needs can be difficult to adequately treat without the proper resources, technology, training and expertise,

Aware that some nations do not have said resources and training available in their medical facilities, and that some diseases, conditions, and disorders occur in such limited instances that some nations have little or no experience treating them,

Concerned that some nations may be harming their citizens by mandating that they be medically treated within their own borders or by restricting access to new or experimental treatments, thus denying better treatment that may be obtained elsewhere,

Observing that there may be occasions where treatment in another nation may be preferable to a patient,

The General Assembly hereby:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of non-resident patients, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly,

3: Requires that member nations respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives,

4: Prohibits member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents as relating to them seeking medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated,

5: Declares that patients seeking medical care or treatment under this act are financially responsible for any costs not compensated by existing laws in their home nation, and that such travel and payment must be arranged by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation,?

6: States that member nations are not obligated to cover future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure,

7: Notes that member nations are not prohibited from assisting in defraying the financial cost associated with citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care under this measure.

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!

[wavote=the_north_pacific,ga]2017_11_10_freedom_to_seek_medical_care[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2017_11_10_freedom_to_seek_medical_care[/wavote]
 
While well intentioned to ensure that people could travel wherever necessary to receive medical care, the resolution unfortunately has a major flaw. Currently, GA 389 provides for the creation of quarantines to ensure patients infected with serious illnesses do not spread said illness elsewhere. If this proposal were to pass, and later on GA 389 were to be repealed, no further legislation to ensure nations could quarantine infectious patients could be created. This could lead to a serious gap in disease prevention and isolation that would threaten citizens of WA nations. A fix is available, however, which would require a resubmission. Instead of saying "restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly" in Clause 1, saying "extant General Assembly resolutions" would leave the door open to ensuring the safety of citizens of World Assembly nations by permitting future legislation. We hope that the author resubmits this resolution with the proposed fix, but in the meantime...

The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
 
The proposal itself is fine. It looks to me like the potential loopholes and legality questions that were posed during the drafting of it were addressed and corrected (if needed). However, something happened during the submission process on clause 5 where there is a jumble of characters - most likely a special character from their word processor that didn't agree with NS. They were notified of it very shortly after the submission and they didn't fix it.

I know I look like a pedant doing so, I'm voting AGAINST on my WA.
 
A concern was brought up in WALL by ImperiumAnglorum that "...passing this resolution will make it impossible to pass future legislation on quarantines or emigration if the current resolutions are repealed."

If I am interpreting this and past resolutions correctly...
Proposal Clause 1:
"Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from leaving to obtain medically necessary healthcare in other nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly,"
versus...
GA 389 Clause 4:
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;
If GA 389 were repealed, would that then mean that nations could not establish quarantines to prevent infected citizens from leaving the nation to seek care, potentially infecting others along the way?

I'm voting Against while this is being addressed.
 
Against, I like the basis of the propsal, the idea but there are some issues in relation to proposal which were fixed from the previous submission. With agreeance with Drasnia, there is a jumple of characters in the opening preamble of the resolution
 
Against. This proposal legalizes desertion to an enemy with superior healthcare in wartime, and it does not contain an exception for prisoners(and the concerns in the MoWAA recommendation are valid, too).
 
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