[GA - Passed] Protection of Biomedical Research [Complete]

BMWSurfer

BMWSurfer

Some random groundhog idk
-
TNP Nation
Veniyerris
Discord
BMWSurfer#1965

ga.jpg

Protection Of Biomedical Research
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Research
Proposed by: Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave | Onsite Topic​

Recognizing the vast potential of biomedical research to improve and save the lives of the citizens of Member-States,

Applauding the great strides already made in the field by many Member-States,

Desiring to establish a universal scientific standard so as to facilitate international cooperation and advancement,

Appalled by the complete lack of moral fiber demonstrated by organizations that oppose life-saving research,

And condemning the placement of unjust and illegitimate restrictions on such research,

The World Assembly hereby;

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

Biomedical Research as the fields of research investigating the causes of disease, disease prevention, treatment, and the mitigation or elimination of medical conditions including, but not limited to: Cancer, Paraplegia, and Motor Neuron Diseases,

Mandates:

That Member-States determine the sapience of any species for which the status is as-yet indeterminate or unknown prior to allowing, or engaging in biomedical experimentation on said species,

That Member-States consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient, regardless of disability or condition,

That any and all research efforts within Member-States, barring those protected for reasons of security, disclose any and all conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, origin and amount of funding, methodological biases, and personal biases in research personnel,

That Member-States place no restrictions on biomedical research beyond those that are necessary to ensure that research efforts meet ethical and scientific standards,

That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research, and,

Clarifies, to avoid certain deliberate misinterpretations,

That the above provisions are subject to extant legislation,

That nothing in this legislation prevents Member-States for ensuring proper respect for the deceased,

That nothing in this legislation prevents Member-States from enforcing Environmental protections,

And reminds Member-States that any and all determinations of sapience or sentience are subject to extant World Assembly legislation and scientific procedure.
Click to expand...
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]2018_02_28_protection_of_biomedical_research[/wavote]
[wavote=world,ga]2018_02_28_protection_of_biomedical_research[/wavote]
 
Protection of Biomedical Research seeks to reinstate rules previously repealed in the GA. The proposal has been modified to reflect concerns put forth by WA members.

The relatively mild proposal seeks to ensure a standard of ethics and scientific rigor in biomedical experiments within the World Assembly. It ensures that member states engage only in research where the well-being and ethical treatment of the subjects are prioritized, but in a manner which makes additional testing on both human and lab animal tests possible. More importantly, the proposal preempts future attempts to block biomedical research in the name of religious or moral objections, ensuring that WA members can engage in research in the best interests of their populations.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting for the resolution.
 
Clause 5 of this resolution does not actually "protect" biomedical research in the manner desired by the author for the simple reason that almost anything can be characterized as a kind of "indirect harm" to sapient life.

For example, this resolution (or at least its previous iteration) exists for the primary purpose of requiring member states to permit embryonic stem cell research. Nonetheless, there are clear indirect harms to sapient life associated with permitting embryonic stem cell research that would permit Auralia to prohibit such research under this resolution:
  • Permitting the destruction of human embryos -- fellow members of the human species at an early stage of development -- for the purposes of biomedical research denies the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, "[w]hen the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined". In other words, once we deny the rights of the weakest among us, the rights of all are put at risk.
  • There is also the simple fact that Auralia's largely Catholic population understandably experiences a great deal of emotional anguish at the thought of harmful and destructive biomedical experimentation on a certain class of human beings being made legal.
(These are, of course, controversial propositions which you may not agree with. The point is that they're rational and plausible and I think entirely compatible with the "indirect harm" standard applied by the resolution.)

It is interesting to note that clause 2 is not actually written with reference to clause 5. It therefore establishes general norms for sapience for the World Assembly -- all member states must "consider any temporarily or permanently incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient, to be themselves Sapient [sic]".

As a result, it is possible that clause 2 requires member states to prohibit embryonic stem cell research as a violation of Prevention of Child Abuse or similar resolutions, since an embryo is arguably a "temporarily...incapacitated member of a species known to be sapient". This depends on whether or not a being that lacks a capacity but will develop it (as opposed to initially having it and then losing it) can be considered "incapacitated". However, at least one definition of the term (which is simply "unable to act, respond, or the like") does include the former case.

In any event, we would support a vote against simply because the resolution is clearly motivated by a desire to compel member states to permit controversial biomedical research, even if it fails (perhaps spectacularly so) to accomplish that goal.
 
Against.

The part of this Resolution that troubles me the most is:
5. That Member-States rescind any and all biomedical research ethics standards and regulations that do not serve specifically to minimize or eliminate direct or indirect harm to life provably sentient or sapient at the time of research...
Click to expand...

It troubles me enough to force my hand in voting against. Ethics standards and regulations that are found necessary in my nation are found necessary for a reason, and I cannot support the WA in forcing the annulment of those laws.

Though, please let me know if I am misinterpreting this.
 
Eluvatar:
This would require human cloning to be legal, would it not?
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct, Elu. That simply reaffirms my issues with the removal of all ethics standards and regulations.

I believe that a good vote is against.
 
Against

I thought about this for awhile, and I believe that the mandate is still too broad to achieve its intended purpose, among other objections.

Claims that a few nations in the WA banning some research will hinder 'lifesaving' research everywhere is spurious and at most an embellishment; a more effective approach would be to mandate that nations cannot outlaw effective treatments in existence if it were the goal to save lives practically, not just theoretically.

Not to mention that there might be legitimate societal reasons to restrict research not based on direct/indirect harm. Restricting research on cloning, for example is one that comes to mind fast. Putting limits on gene enhancement (note: not therapy) seems to be a topic also ignored in this debate, along with some kinds of cosmetic research. It seems reasonable that nations with paternalistic ideologies could prohibit those for non-dogmatic reasons.

All in all I think this version is better than the previous attempt, but I still can't rally behind it. Something about pushing a certain ideologist view of research with the claim of moral righteousness is off putting.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top