[GA - Defeated] Regulating Medical Genetic Modification

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Regulating Medical Genetic Modification
Category: Health | Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: Walfo | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,
Aware of the advancement of medical technologies making it possible to alter a living person's DNA to treat or even cure diseases and disorders caused by malfunctioning genes,
Worried that such relatively new technology might be adopted prematurely by medical professionals, for such reasons as greed or personal gain, or pressure on the scientific community by the uninformed authorities, which could lead to unwise or unsafe applications of genetic modification,
Thus wishing to set an international standard of minimum safety requirements for medical genetic modification procedures,
Hereby,
1. For the purposes of this resolution defines genetic modification as the process of making specific changes to the genetic material of a sapient individual,
2. Requires that genetic modification procedures:
  1. Are as specific for their intended purpose of treatment as possible given the treating nation's level of medical science,
  2. Have been tested and proven to be generally safe to use for editing genetic material,
  3. Cause as few genetic editing errors as possible,
  4. Are administered by expert medical staff with adequate training on genetic modifications;

3. Encourages member nations to keep genetic treatments available and affordable to those who need them (including through subsidization if necessary).
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
91403
 
Last edited:
For. While I have some reservations about the wording (per my posts on the forum), this is overall well-written, and this is a new author.
 
Last edited:
(Non-WA) I am for this. The proposal is fairly well-written, and it establishes some key mandates which, though implemented in any reasonable nation, are good to ensure as a matter of basic standards. The author has been drafting this for about four months, and it has gone through a lot of changes, making this a streamlined proposal that doesn’t try to overextend.
 
Present (vote withdrawn)

Generally indifferent, some minor concerns but seems to be written fine.
 
Last edited:
I am generally okay with the proposal as is, some things can be covered by good faith interpretation anyways. Like we should be able to assume the adequate training is serious, nice training, else we would breach good faith. So its a For from me
 
I am not very familiar with the topic of ethics of medical sciences in real life to really offer any constructive comments.
 
Last edited:
Against
Clause 2.1 states accorindg to each nations own level of medical science, given that how can several nations join together as they would not all have the same level of medical science. To expanded on that again how would this work say with an university that has a lab that has a higher level of science than the country it resides in.
Clause 2.2 in reference to being "generally safe" that is a very broad definition and would greatly vary between each nation.
 
Last edited:
Simone_Republic:
I am not very familiar with the topic of ethics of medical sciences in real life to really offer any constructive comments.
Click to expand...

Having thought about this, Against. Not because I have a strong view on medical ethics (this is not something that I am familiar with) but because I nearly forgot that NS assumes "sapient species" and not necessarily humans, so doing genetic modification could really muck things up real bad because we are supposed to handle a multiverse if the RPers complain.

Edit: strike the above. Will wait and cast my vote at the last minute.
 
Last edited:
www.scmp.com

Hong Kong revokes work visa given to scientist jailed for medical malpractice

Immigration Department pulls visa after suspicions controversial mainland Chinese scientist He Jiankui lied on application.
www.scmp.com www.scmp.com

This issue is closer than you'd think. He Jiankui, who edited genes in three babies to try to make them HIV resistant, was going to set up a lab in Hong Kong and then the government U-turned yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Simone_Republic:
Having thought about this, Against. Not because I have a strong view on medical ethics (this is not something that I am familiar with) but because I nearly forgot that NS assumes "sapient species" and not necessarily humans, so doing genetic modification could really muck things up real bad because we are supposed to handle a multiverse if the RPers complain.
Click to expand...
This doesn't require them to be made accessible; the most it does on the topic is the final clause, which is non-binding, and even if it was binding, Avis Roleplaywankis would not "need" genetic modification procedures if they are harmful to said species' health.
 
Last edited:
Elfnotonashelf:
Against
Clause 2.1 states accorindg to each nations own level of medical science, given that how can several nations join together as they would not all have the same level of medical science. To expanded on that again how would this work say with an university that has a lab that has a higher level of science than the country it resides in.
Clause 2.2 in reference to being "generally safe" that is a very broad definition and would greatly vary between each nation.
Click to expand...
The first comment, if they join together they should have a combined sense of there status, so this works
Second, see this comment. https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=526260&p=40251162&hilit=generally+safe#p40251162
See this comment too for context: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=526260&p=40364637&hilit=Disagree.+Adequate+training+is,#p40364637
If most of your against is due to these comments, hopefully, this can change your point of view. If it is due to something else let me know and let's see if I can clarify. We got 2 days, let's use them.
 
Last edited:
I think the word “adequate” behind training really hurts this one for me. against.
 
Hulldom:
I think the word “adequate” behind training really hurts this one for me. against.
Click to expand...
Adequate training is, by all means, "adequate" as interpreted by the eyes of the scientific community. There seems to be a trend in the WA that everything needs to be judicialized to the very last word, and not even a comma can escape the suffocating grasp of its intoxicating bureaucracy.
We find this interpretation of the excerpt, that governments may twist the availability of the procedure, without real damage to the integrity of the proposal. The WA participation is already based on good faith (despite the lack of it in many influent legislators' agenda) - adding a few words only to specify who should or not be able to work in this field, either with the objective of restricting or, rather, expanding availability of professionals, will not contribute to enforce compliance on those that already have bad faith in complying anyway. In all, further specification as to which professionals can or can not employ the relevant technique is exactly that: further specification, unnecessary judicial guidelining, and details which an institution such as the WA should not need to legislate, or vote on.
-Taken from the forum https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=526260&start=150
 
Last edited:
Against. I am uncomfortable with the language providing the amount of leeway that it does concerning genetic editing errors and the "adequacy" of training in administering genetic modification. Furthermore, "generally safe" is, in my view, an unacceptable threshold for medical procedures or methods that have the potential to cause catastrophic damage to individuals, as gene editing has.
 
Greater Cesnica:
Against. I am uncomfortable with the language providing the amount of leeway that it does concerning genetic editing errors and the "adequacy" of training in administering genetic modification. Furthermore, "generally safe" is, in my view, an unacceptable threshold for medical procedures or methods that have the potential to cause catastrophic damage to individuals, as gene editing has.
Click to expand...
GA 111 and GA 218 already set standards for patient care, and the safety of medical devices/research, so the reason such word choices were made was to prevent repetition. This should solve, and make clear to everyone who is voting against why this was done. It already exits!
 
Last edited:
WalfoPacificCommunication:
GA 111 and GA 218 already set standards for patient care, and the safety of medical devices/research, so the reason such word choices were made was to prevent repetition. This should solve, and make clear to everyone who is voting against why this was done. It already exits!
Click to expand...
GAR #111 applies to medical research, which has a higher acceptable threshold of risk than non-research medical intervention/care. I can see where GAR #218 may be applicable to this topic, but there exists enough ambiguity that you should have specified these things more in the proposal.
 
Greater Cesnica:
GAR #111 applies to medical research, which has a higher acceptable threshold of risk than non-research medical intervention/care. I can see where GAR #218 may be applicable to this topic, but there exists enough ambiguity that you should have specified these things more in the proposal.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat this which was said on the forums:
Adequate training is, by all means, "adequate" as interpreted by the eyes of the scientific community. There seems to be a trend in the WA that everything needs to be judicialized to the very last word, and not even a comma can escape the suffocating grasp of its intoxicating bureaucracy.
We find this interpretation of the excerpt, that governments may twist the availability of the procedure, without real damage to the integrity of the proposal. The WA participation is already based on good faith (despite the lack of it in many influent legislators' agenda) - adding a few words only to specify who should or not be able to work in this field, either with the objective of restricting or, rather, expanding availability of professionals, will not contribute to enforce compliance on those that already have bad faith in complying anyway. In all, further specification as to which professionals can or can not employ the relevant technique is exactly that: further specification, unnecessary judicial guidelining, and details which an institution such as the WA should not need to legislate, or vote on.
-Taken from the forum https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=526260&start=150
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top