[GA - Passed] Convention on Animal Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deropia

Deropia

Peasant Wizard
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Deropia
Discord
Dero#2736

ga.jpg

Convention on Animal Testing
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Bioethics
Proposed by: Marxist Germany | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Concerned by the lack of legislation regarding the treatment of testing animals,

Recognising that animals deserve to be properly treated during and after testing,

Noting that mistreatment of animal test subjects may lead to severe distress for the animal and inaccurate research results, and

Seeking to establish regulations on the treatment of animal test subjects,


Hereby,
  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
    • A "research facility" as any facility, private or public, which engages in animal testing for any scientific purpose, including consumer safety and weapons testing;
    • A "test animal" as a sentient but not sapient animal in the custody of any research facility for scientific purposes;
    • "Ethical testing", and all derived terms, as testing carried out on an animal in a way that is not maliciously intended to cause severe distress or harm to the animal;
  2. Establishes the World Assembly Board of Bioethics (WABB), which will be tasked with the following:
    • Overseeing scientific experimentation in member states to ensure animal testing is being carried out ethically and in accordance with all relevant WA law;
    • Reporting instances of noncompliance with the ethical requirements mandated in this resolution to the local authorities for penalisation;
  3. Dictates that member states must reasonably and proportionally penalise research labs upon receiving a report about unethical testing from the WABB;

  4. Mandates that all research facilities in member states that carry out testing on animals:
    • Report all procedures carried out on animals, and euthanisations in their custody to the WABB;
    • Carry out solely ethical testing, as defined in section 1c;
  5. Requires that when a research facility is finished using an animal in its experiments:
    • The animal is returned to the wild if it was captured from the wild, has a good chance of being returned to its natural habitat successfully, and if it poses no risk to the environment it is being released into, such as carrying diseases; or;
    • The animal is given to a legal entity capable of taking care of it for the rest of its lifespan; if:
      • it is expected to live for over a year after its adoption,
      • it is healthy, not sick, and of good disposition, and,
      • it is unable to survive without help, or is of a species commonly kept as pet or livestock;
    • If the animal is unable to be adopted or released into the wild then it may be humanely euthanised;
  6. Clarifies that an animal can still be adopted even if it is unable to live for over a year, and;

  7. Prohibits the intentional killing of a test animal in a cruel manner, in addition to forbidding the killing of a former test animal before the viability of its adoption or release into the wild has been examined, and it has been found unsuitable for both.

Co-authored by United States of Americanas
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!
 
The current resolution at vote, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects, however, the Ministry is unable to recommend support at this time. Upon close inspection, the proposal would seem to allow for undue pain and suffering caused by negligence. It should also be noted that the proposal requires that "all procedures" be documented and reported to the World Assembly Bioethics Board. Without a proper definition, the Ministry believes this to be an overreach and would include something as simple as shaving fur for future placement of testing devices. It is also concerning that the World Assembly Bioethics Board appears to acts as a judicial entity. While this is something that extant legislation has done in the past, we must question the necessity of the practice in regards to a subject such as animal testing.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote against the proposal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against.

I thought that this topic has already been covered by other GA resolutions. The argument is weak and vague.
 
Present. I am somewhat unsure on this resolution. On the one hand, I think that in broad terms its content is unobjectionable and for the better; I don't see all that much to be opposed in punishing those who do malicious and intentional harm to an animal nor in preventing animals being cruelly or unnecessarily killed.

On the other hand, there are some elements which seem overbroad, the requirement to report "all procedures" absent a definition of the term in particular, and there is something about the drafting of clause 5 especially that makes me think it could be improved (the fact that its terms appear to necessitate clarification in clause 6 supports this, I think). I think also that it is not wholly clear why the creation of a committee is needed which is somewhat more of a concern given that it is a committee that effectively assumes a judicial function in determining liability for penalty.

On the whole, though, it isn't the above points alone that make me think against supporting the resolution, more significantly, to my mind, is that I am not sure that the definition of "ethical testing" goes far enough, as it would still appear to permit testing that negligently causes harm that is unnecessary for the legitimate purposes of the testing.
 
against all the way, doesn’t seem logical and unethical to release animals back from its taken environment (it disturbs the ecosystem either way) also NO ONE is gonna want to take care of sick or hurt animals from the result of testing
 
Against.
The idea behind the proposal is what we want, but this is not the proposal we need. Definitions given in Clause 1 seems to be broad and doesn't feel well defined enough, especially with regards to the phrase "sentient but not sapient animal" in 1b that I don't want to see it anymore.
On the other hand, there is clause 5, which seems poorly phrased. It seems that all animals that can be adopted must be adopted and not euthanized, which is impossible under some circumstances due to the costs involved and the after effects of failed experiments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top