[GA - Defeated] Regulating Medical Genetic Modification

Status
Not open for further replies.
WalfoPacificCommunication:
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
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with Republic of Mesque. Individual words make or break legislative agendae all the time. They have very real consequences; support or opposition to motions is determined by these minute details. Any weakness can be exploited by bad actors and those seeking to circumvent legislative requirements, more-so than those that are robustly worded.
 
Greater Cesnica:
I respectfully disagree with Republic of Mesque. Individual words make or break legislative agendae all the time. They have very real consequences; support or opposition to motions is determined by these minute details. Any weakness can be exploited by bad actors and those seeking to circumvent legislative requirements, more-so than those that are robustly worded.
Click to expand...
As something that has been done before, for the generally safe question, what about GA 492? GMs would follow its qualifications, and then, such specific wording would be repetitive.
 
Last edited:
WalfoPacificCommunication:
As something that has been done before, for the generally safe question, what about GA 492? GMs would follow its qualifications, and then, such specific wording would be repetitive.
Click to expand...
Perceived repetitiveness=/=illegality. Also genetic modification procedures are, in my view, by their very nature capable of inflicting far more catastrophic harm than most other medical interventions.
 
Greater Cesnica:
Perceived repetitiveness=/=illegality. Also genetic modification procedures are, in my view, by their very nature capable of inflicting far more catastrophic harm than most other medical interventions.
Click to expand...
I think the wording is fine, and you should see past these minor perceived flaws. The proposal as a whole is something that is necessary to implement, for the safety of everyone. No matter what, this will improve the safety behind genetic modifications, and rid you of these fears, which many also harbor.
 
Last edited:
WalfoPacificCommunication:
I think the wording is fine, and you should see past these minor perceived flaws. The proposal as a whole is something that is necessary to implement, for the safety of everyone. No matter what, this will improve the safety behind genetic modifications, and rid you of these fears, which many also harbor.
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to the concept of genetic modification procedures for medical purposes as it concerns to sapient beings. I'm saying that it requires a much higher standard of regulation.
 
Greater Cesnica:
I'm not opposed to the concept of genetic modification procedures for medical purposes as it concerns to sapient beings. I'm saying that it requires a much higher standard of regulation.
Click to expand...
Of course, I just believe you are asking for too much, in sections that are perfectly applicable, and are being over exaggerated,
 
Switching my vote to present. I discussed this with Heaven's Reach offsite; but besides the ambiguity as to "generally safe" etc, what this addresses seems not to be particularly relevant to what should be regulated as to genetic modification. Genetic modification must be "safe" and administered safely; but that isn't what is important to regulate about genetic modification, which is issues such as eugenics, environmental harm, and so on.
-----
Anne of Cleves:
OOC:
For, since this is short and to the point on what it sets out to do.

IC:
Against due to religious belief stuff.
See https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=526260&start=175
Click to expand...
Which vote would you like counted?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top