[GA - Passed] Freedom To Seek Medical Care II

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Freedom To Seek Medical Care II
Category: Civil 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,

Noting that a previous version of this measure passed the General Assembly by a substantial margin, demonstrating widespread support for recognizing the freedom to seek medical care,

The General Assembly hereby:

1: Prohibits member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from traveling to obtain medically necessary healthcare in foreign nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly, while allowing member nations to prohibit travel to nations involved in active armed conflict with the member nation,

2: Affirms the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the in-bound travel of non-residents so long as such ordinances are in accordance with previously passed General Assembly legislation, 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 who seek 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.
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!
 
Information For Voters: This is the second incarnation of this proposal. The first was submitted for vote roughly one year ago, and little has changed between that version and this. The Ministry cited a significant problem with version one (FTSMC), in that it created potential conflicts with standing legislation GAR#389, relating to the closure of national borders, and the prohibition of temporary emigration at times of quarantine during epidemics. Should the need arise to repeal and replace GAR#389 with a more comprehensive version, the passage of FTSMC would have rendered that legally impossible. The loss of that ability to declare quarantines, and close national borders, would present an unacceptable risk to the greater public health of the WA, writ large. While the Ministry, then, supported the premise of FTMSC, it could not support the proposal without a suggested, minor edit to language, alleviating that problem. In the current version, those recommendations have gone ignored, the troublesome language remains, as does the potential conflict. It appears the author simply sat on the proposal for a year, made minor amendments that did not address previous concerns, then added a “II” to the title in hopes that voters would forget. This shows a certain complacency, which is further highlighted by the garbled text that appeared in the previous version and remains uncorrected a year later.

For these reasons, The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For Against
Well crafted, and since my nation has universal healthcare, I like that citizens aren't financially responsible for any subsequent health fallout that might arise from out-of-nation witch-doctoring.

Edit: After considering the problem raised in the previous IFV, changing my vote.
 
Last edited:
Nothing has changed that would compel me to come around on this resolution, and when combined with the same dumb error plus what is an unappealing title, this vote is easy.

Against
 
Pallaith:
Nothing has changed that would compel me to come around on this resolution, and when combined with the same dumb error plus what is an unappealing title, this vote is easy.
Against
Click to expand...
Waaaait a minute. Didn't we just vote in favour of keeping DVR based on an argument that potential oversights can be easily patched through supplementary proposals, and every conceivable variant need not be addressed in one place? The supposed 'loophole' in this one is way more of a stretch than the scenaria outlined in Repeal DVR, and those were dismissed. If GAR#389 should ever come up for repeal, this potential lack of legilsation would surely be brought up during revisions (especially since it's on IA's radar now) and the WA would surely not repeal legislation like GAR#389 without a suitable and comprehensive replacement ready to go.
 
bowloftoast:
Waaaait a minute. Didn't we just vote in favour of keeping DVR based on an argument that potential oversights can be easily patched through supplementary proposals, and every conceivable variant need not be addressed in one place? The supposed 'loophole' in this one is way more of a stretch than the scenaria outlined in Repeal DVR, and those were dismissed. If GAR#389 should ever come up for repeal, this potential lack of legilsation would surely be brought up during revisions (especially since it's on IA's radar now) and the WA would surely not repeal legislation like GAR#389 without a suitable and comprehensive replacement ready to go.
Click to expand...
No. The problem is there wouldn’t be any room for more legislation on that topic. The other resolution was not the final word on that topic. It’s not accurate to equate the two situations.
 
Pallaith:
No. The problem is there wouldn’t be any room for more legislation on that topic. The other resolution was not the final word on that topic. It’s not accurate to equate the two situations.
Click to expand...

Got it. I misread the other IFV as saying that repealing 389 would create a gap as opposed to it leaving no room for future fixes.
 
Clause 5 requires that patients seeking medical treatment abroad bear any financial costs incurred, even as clause 7 permits member states to defray any such costs as they deem fit. Should member states opt not to provide any financial assistance, this would greatly disadvantage patients from poorer backgrounds, in some cases placing the very lives of some of these patients in grave danger. Should the WA change its mind, this resolution would first have to be repealed in its entirety.

We believe that no one should be left out, be they a citizen or a foreigner, manpower, resources and land area permitting. For this reason alone, New Bremerton hereby votes AGAINST this proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top