[GA - PASSED] Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​
Whereas the sterilisation of minors or incompetent persons is not prohibited by the legislation of this most excellent Assembly :

And whereas it would be most safe to entrust the authority to make such a determination to independent medical authorities :

Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :

1. It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

2. The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution.
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!
 
Against

I don't see the need to create a bureaucracy for something that a doctor could make a decision on just as well.
 
Last edited:
It avoids all the issues we had with the last proposal that tackled this subject. So what's the objection here?
 
For. It does exactly what it is supposed to do and aids in the issue of allowing parents to make decisions on their children without question.
 
(My WA is not in TNP)

That said, I support this proposal - don't really see problems with not allowing sterilization of children without medical review, and this proposal does that well.
 
For...

I have reservations about this bill but none that personally impress upon me as bill-breaking.
 
Pallaith:
For the record, my vote is For.

I challenge those opposed to plead their case.
Click to expand...
Essentially, I don't see the need to create a bureaucracy for something that a doctor could make a decision on just as well.
 
Against- There is nothing that prevents the Institutional Review Board from being filled with partisans and non medical personnel.
 
Dreadton:
Against- There is nothing that prevents the Institutional Review Board from being filled with partisans and non medical personnel.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. Filling it with non medical personnel would prevent the IRB from functioning which violates RNT. And the IRB cannot make incorrect rulings via WACC.
 
Against. Both IC and OOC stops me from voting for this bill, but I shall just state my OOC reasons here since it is the more relevant set of reasons.
I am not the kind of person who would vote for a bill just because "the bill takes a step in the correct direction" or that "it's doing the right thing", instead I feel that there needs to be enough substance before a resolution should be passed.
Trying to write a resolution to create an independent board to oversee sterilisation of minors is in my opinion, plain ridiculous. There is absolutely no need to come up with one resolution that does only one thing in principle, that is creating a board that does what doctors can do.
Besides, the practicality of maintaining such a board is close to none. Often when such a procedure is necessary, it might even be a medical emergency that calls for the operation to be made. If we have to seek the advice of this board, wouldn't it unnecessarily delay the procedure? Also, aren't doctors supposed to bear the responsibility of deciding whether such a procedure is necessary? If doctors can make the decision, what then is the purpose of having additional bureaucratic red tape by commissioning an independent board to make one decision?

You can go ahead and convince me otherwise. (Just to add on, I heard that there is another argument of how this does not make the process illegal and goes against Res 29 on Patients Rights, but I am not particularly convince by that line of thought)
 
Fregerson:
Against. Both IC and OOC stops me from voting for this bill, but I shall just state my OOC reasons here since it is the more relevant set of reasons.
I am not the kind of person who would vote for a bill just because "the bill takes a step in the correct direction" or that "it's doing the right thing", instead I feel that there needs to be enough substance before a resolution should be passed.
Trying to write a resolution to create an independent board to oversee sterilisation of minors is in my opinion, plain ridiculous. There is absolutely no need to come up with one resolution that does only one thing in principle, that is creating a board that does what doctors can do.
Besides, the practicality of maintaining such a board is close to none. Often when such a procedure is necessary, it might even be a medical emergency that calls for the operation to be made. If we have to seek the advice of this board, wouldn't it unnecessarily delay the procedure? Also, aren't doctors supposed to bear the responsibility of deciding whether such a procedure is necessary? If doctors can make the decision, what then is the purpose of having additional bureaucratic red tape by commissioning an independent board to make one decision?

You can go ahead and convince me otherwise. (Just to add on, I heard that there is another argument of how this does not make the process illegal and goes against Res 29 on Patients Rights, but I am not particularly convince by that line of thought)
Click to expand...
Afaik, the illegality argument holds little weight.

However in your application, most medical decisions of that nature that require life altering changes already go through boards in hospitals IRL. So this wouldn't be too crazy to consider. And the sterilization of someone is typically a last resort option. I'm not even too sure of an application where that would reasonably exist tbh. One that you can't check with a review board with before is fairly sure to not exist. If there is a situation in which it must be removed, it's typically bc the item is no longer functional, in which case it's not really sterilization anymore.

The NatSov argument here isn't really holding much water. These IRB could act fairly quickly and are going to be qualified. It's not like there would not be a sense of urgency.
 
For.

While it doesn't quite go as far as I would like, in that I am of the view that sterilisation of those who lack capacity should generally be a matter for judicial consideration, it is for the better (and does not prevent a nation from going further, as I would). It is wholly appropriate that the matter should require consideration by someone other than the treating physician, given the gravity of the decision, and that sterilisation should follow only where necessary for the long-term health of the patient.

In relation to the objection of urgency, I see no reason to think it would not be possible for a board to act expeditiously where required but, in any event, I struggle to think of a circumstance where sterilisation is likely to be necessary and urgent. Perhaps there may be edge cases where it would be an inevitable consequence of some other treatment, but even in such a case it would seem to me to be likely, as I say, that expedition can be achieved.

With regard to the argument that it is permissible for nations to set up a board required by the resolution to be "independent" in such a manner that the board is not independent is an argument that defies sense.

The illegality argument (or, at least, the one I see being made) is also, to my mind, not properly made out, resolution #29 clause II requires only that treatments which are "legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed". The present resolution provides that sterilisation "is unlawful in all member nations" except where the conditions of the resolution are met. There is no contradiction between these requirements because if sterilisation is not lawful, because it does not meet the requirements of the present resolution, then it is not legal for the person to be sterilised and so no right under resolution #29 clause II arises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top