NationStates Jolt Archive

All this act is doing is upholding a citizen's right to treatment, and falls very much in line with our Universal Human Rights Bill

All this act is doing is upholding a citizen's right to treatment, and falls very much in line with our Universal Human Rights Bill

#1 Emergency

#2 Post the draft/proposal text

Emergancy Health Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Homelife

Description: Emergancy Health Act

Where as we, The United Nations, have accepted that all men and women are created equal and entitled to live their lives without prejudice due to race or creed, and as we are a World governing body that is appointed by the people and is for the people, we find that no nation may make a law that allows for the refusal of treatment of someone who is in need of critical medical treatment.

Critical Health shall be defined by the U.N. as anyone who is endangered of losing their life due to sudden sickness or injury.

Therefore, no man or woman shall be denied critical life saving treatment based on a lack of insurance, or a lack of financial means.

This law does not apply to cancer, the AIDS virus, or any long term threating disaese, only to immediate medical emergancies, unless the patient who has one of these diseases enters the hospital and is in immediate danger of losing their life.

Examples of immediate medical complications are: Heart attacks, strokes, someone who is going into shock, internal bleeding due to injury or a sickness that has not been identifed previously, head trauma due to injury, spinal chord injuries, and anyone who's vital organs have ceased to function.

This bill does not limit countries from adding medical complications to the bill, but those medical complications listed in the bill must be treated in every country that is apart of the United Nations.

This law will only affect the emergancy treatment facilities and the Intensive Care units of hospitals, and not any specialized clincs within the hospital.

Approvals: 8

~PC

Adam Island cannot support this resolution, because we do not believe that someone has the right to be forced to serve as a life-support system for anyone else. That's why we favor abortion rights.

But if you do want it passed, you should add in a clause that makes an exception if the dying individual refuses treatment. Perhaps they have religious reasons, or they want to die, or whatnot.

All citizens of UN member states are already treated equally under the law. (The Universal Bill of Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25)).

All citizens of UN member states are already financially covered financially for their health care needs (Required Basic Healthcare (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=16) and 'RBH' Replacement (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=19)).

There is no need for such a resolution, and in fact this resolution actually removes some of the rights that have already been granted.

While our previous health care resolutions (... how shall I put this ...) suck, they are nonetheless on the law books. Until they are repealed, this one is illegal and/or unnecessary.

Adam Island cannot support this resolution, because we do not believe that someone has the right to be forced to serve as a life-support system for anyone else. That's why we favor abortion rights.

But if you do want it passed, you should add in a clause that makes an exception if the dying individual refuses treatment. Perhaps they have religious reasons, or they want to die, or whatnot.

Actually this proposal doesn't say the person has to be treated. It says if they ask to be treated, they must be.

Your proposal would also stand a chance of being taken more seriously if you used correct spelling. It is e-m-e-r-g-E-n-c-y.

Actually this proposal doesn't say the person has to be treated. It says if they ask to be treated, they must be.

no nation may make a law that allows for the refusal of treatment of someone who is in need of critical medical treatment.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Note that it doesn't even say refusal by who. What if I refuse treatment because I have a religious belief that treating people on the Sabbath is evil? What if the person is in need of emergency care because I just bashed his head in with a baseball bat because he was trying to rape me? What if I refuse them treatment because they're an enemy soldier and if I go down the submarine hatch to treat them I'll get shot to death? What if I refuse them treatment because their death is part of a public, legal execution?

There are many, many legitimate reasons to morally refuse to allow someone to die by not treating them. And legally, there are even more-- why should I be forced to treat someone just because I happened across the scene?

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Note that it doesn't even say refusal by who. What if I refuse treatment because I have a religious belief that treating people on the Sabbath is evil? What if the person is in need of emergency care because I just bashed his head in with a baseball bat because he was trying to rape me? What if I refuse them treatment because they're an enemy soldier and if I go down the submarine hatch to treat them I'll get shot to death? What if I refuse them treatment because their death is part of a public, legal execution?

There are many, many legitimate reasons to morally refuse to allow someone to die by not treating them. And legally, there are even more-- why should I be forced to treat someone just because I happened across the scene?

Wow - I totally read it the other way.

I read it as "the state can not refuse to treat someone if they ask for it, but if they don't ask it doesn't matter" but you have asked for "no one can refuse treatment by the state"

Is that it?

I guess it does need some clarification then :}

And for the other parts - the religious beliefs, the enemy soldiers and so on - I think that those things should be considered. Refusing to treat someone because you don't like them is something I would consider immoral. Refusing to treat someone because of your religious beliefs rather than theirs is eually imorral. If you just beat someone's head in then I can understand why you might not want to treat them there and then, but I think making sure they get treatment is something that should be done.

Medicine is not something that can be opted out of. Doctors should have a duty to save lives, and as such they can not pick and chose who they are going to save.

What it says is that no nation may make a law that allows hospitals to refuse treatment, based on sex, race, creed, or financial status. It is not saying that you must accept treatment. If a person does not want treatment, he or she does not have to recieve it, but they will be given the right to have treatment no matter what.