[GA - Last Call] Patient Travel Freedoms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

Patient Right to Travel
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: Cretox State | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Noting that adequate and affordable medical care is necessary to ensure the health of individuals and society as a whole,

Understanding that the unique medical needs of individuals can and do vary greatly, as does the medical infrastructure available within any given nation, and

Recognizing that there are occasions in which seeking medical care in a foreign country is in the best interests of an individual, hereby:
  1. Defines a "patient" as a citizen or permanent resident of a member nation seeking medical care within the territory of a foreign member nation;
  2. Declares that, subject to this and extant World Assembly resolutions, member nations shall not prohibit or obstructively interfere with the ability of their patients to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign member nation;
  3. Clarifies that member nations may implement reasonable restrictions on the ability of their patients to seek medical care within the territory of a foreign member nation to address circumstances where:
    1. seeking medical care within the territory of said nation would present a severe threat to the safety of said citizens or permanent residents, excepting potential direct complications of the medical care being sought;
    2. the patients in question are legally unable to make the decision to seek medical care in the territory of said nation due to incarceration, ongoing legal proceedings, mental incompetence, or being below the age of majority; or
    3. preventing said patients from seeking medical care within the territory of said nation serves a compelling public policy interest similar in nature to the above, which clearly and demonstrably warrants restricting the ability of those patients to seek medical care within the territory of said nation and definitely outweighs the need to protect the right to seek medical care abroad;
  4. Prohibits member nations from taking legal action or retaliating against their patients for seeking medical care in the territory of a foreign member nation, except as necessary to enforce restrictions implemented pursuant to clause 3 of this resolution;
  5. Subject to extant World Assembly resolutions, mandates that member nations implement reasonable and thoroughly developed policies for providing medical care to their incarcerated populations, for situations in which such care should be required;
  6. Declares that patients within the territory of a foreign member nation have the right to:
    1. receive appropriate continuing or follow-up medical care upon returning to their home nation, should such care be reasonably available;
    2. receive, to the extent that can reasonably be provided, accurate information concerning all prescribed medications, including their names and alternate names as commonly known in said patients' nation of residence, their normal actions, and applicable side effects;
    3. receive reasonable accommodation concerning the scheduling of medical care when bound by travel constraints; and
    4. be reasonably informed of available resources for resolving disputes arising from the medical care in question, including applicable domestic and foreign legal representatives, and to have potential disputes resolved thoroughly and in a timely manner, and to be sufficiently informed of their outcome;
  7. Subject to the other provisions of this resolution, requires member nations to collect and compile accurate and actionable data concerning their patients' reasons for seeking medical care in a foreign member nation, and to use said data to identify and address weaknesses in their domestic healthcare systems;
  8. Urges member nations to further improve domestic access to medical care; and
  9. Clarifies that "medical care" as used in this resolution also includes medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!
For Against Abstain Present
0000
 
Last edited:
Vote: For
My only complaint (and this is coming from someone with not a lot of WA experience) is that your resolution does not include the definition of what counts as "medical care". For example, a hardline nation that prohibits gender realignment surgery in one form or another interfering with a citizen's right to seek that treatment elsewhere because it is not considered medical care. (Perhaps they might attempt to define such a thing as cosmetic rather than medical, and therefore not covered by the GA resolution)
 
Invalid vote against. Like Bananaistan, I am against allowing the rich to piss off to other countries and leave their home countries' medical systems still shite.
 
Honeydewistan:
Invalid vote against. Like Bananaistan, I am against allowing the rich to piss off to other countries and leave their home countries' medical systems still shite.
Click to expand...
Before I address this argument in any detail, I'd like to step back and look at your premise itself.

What you're saying is that allowing people to leave their countries for medical care (at no direct expense to the home nation, I may add) removes incentives for said people to somehow make their own countries' healthcare systems better. I'll say this once: "rich people" are not the government. The government is the government. What incentive would the government (you know, the thing that actually writes healthcare policy) have to improve domestic healthcare when it has a captive population without freedom of movement? Look at North Korea in the real world. Their citizens sure can't "piss off to other countries" whenever they please. In fact, they can't exactly legally leave at all. I assume North Korea has one of the best healthcare systems on the planet, based on what you're saying? Ditto the USSR, etc.

In general, freedom of movement is an essential component of human rights, for example in the European Convention on Human Rights. I feel that this is something not adequately covered (if at all) by GA legislation, especially given the fact that freedom of movement is essential to modern human rights law.

Saying that travel for medical care removes incentives to improve domestic healthcare is like saying that welfare removes incentive to work. You cannot sacrifice people's lives, food security, or health for the purposes of social engineering.

Edit: Out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to invoke Bananaistan? You're the one making this argument, not them.
 
Last edited:
In general, freedom of movement is an essential component of human rights, for example in the European Convention on Human Rights. I feel that this is something not adequately covered (if at all) by GA legislation, especially given the fact that freedom of movement is essential to modern human rights law.
Click to expand...

Err... Idk if you've read GA#279 yet, but I think it covers it pretty well, so your points about North Korea are moot. It's why I opposed this in the first place. Also, I invoked Banana as I felt they described my opinion on this pretty well.
 
Last edited:
Honeydewistan:
Err... Idk if you've read GA#279 yet, but I think it covers it pretty well, so your points about North Korea are moot. It's why I opposed this in the first place. Also, I invoked Banana as I felt they described my opinion on this pretty well.
Click to expand...
279 applies specifically to emigration, which implies a permanent relocation. I do not recall you opposing the proposal "in the first place," much less for the reason of 279 existing.

Edit: I understand the part about Banana; it just seemed a bit out of left field considering that not everyone here regularly follows the WA Discord.
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
279 applies specifically to emigration, which implies a permanent relocation. I do not recall you opposing the proposal "in the first place," much less for the reason of 279 existing.

Edit: I understand the part about Banana; it just seemed a bit out of left field considering that not everyone here regularly follows the WA Discord.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing emigration in 279 as permanent relocation only, and if it is it doesn't quite make much sense, and probably should be covered as soon as possible (instead of this)
 
For.

The fact that some people want to deny others access to foreign health care because not everyone can presently access it is the weirdest thing I've read on the internet today.
 
For, with the qualifiers that, if I read this correctly, (I) clause(2)(1) allows nations to (for example) block someone from travelling to a foreign country to seek abortions (I am pro choice personally), (II) if a country guarantees freedom of movement, this is redundant.
 
Last edited:
Mall:
2.1 - shouldn't that be "and/or" rather than just "and" at the end of the clause?
Click to expand...
My intention there was that the "and" refers to "circumstances" in abstract, not the conditions given specifically. So it would read as "member nations may impose restrictions to address this circumstance, and may impose restrictions to address this other circumstance."

Edit: Changed that phrase.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top