NationStates Jolt Archive

Medical Integrity of the Private Person

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of everyone, who has not been found guilty of a crime where medical influence is a reasonable and/or ethical sequel to the crime, to decide what happens to his (or her or its) own body,

REGRETTING recent attempts by certain UN members to violate the personal integrity that is inherent to every person,

WISHING to further establish every person's rights pertaining to choice vis-à-vis medical treatment,

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:

"Patient" to be any person seeking, or subject to, by his own volition or not, medical care or intervention;
"Health care provider" to be any person, entity, institution or similar association whose profession or modus operandi is to offer any sort of medical treatment, mainstream or otherwise, whether they be found in the private or public sector;
"Treatment" to be any sort of diagnostic, physiological or therapeutic examination, test, treatment or such procedure available;

The NSUN hereby declares that:

I. Every patient has the right to freely choose and/or change health care provider, as well as the right to seek the opinion of another health care provider.

II. Every patient has the right to autonomy; to freely decide matters pertaining to his person or body. The health care provider shall inform the patient of the consequences of his decisions.

III. Every mentally competent, adult patient has the right to refuse treatment. The patient has the right to access information that is vital for his right to take this decision and/or to clearly understand the purpose of any treatment.

IV. Every patient has the right to refuse to be subject to any medical research or training.

V. If the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of expressing his opinion, consent shall - where this is reasonably possible - be obtained from a legal guardian, primarily the closest family member.

VI. If a legal guardian is not available and the need for medical treatment is of pressing emergency, the patient may be considered as having given consent unless it is clear and apparent beyond reasonable doubt that he through earlier utterances or convictions would have withheld consent in a similar situation.

VII. The health care provider shall, however, always attempt to save the life of a patient who is unconscious due to an attempted suicide. This provision does not apply to patients undergoing euthanasia, assisted suicide, or similar via legal procedures.

VIII. If a patient is a minor, or in some other similar way lacks legal competence, consent must be obtained from a legal guardian. The patient shall, however, take part in the decision making process to the highest extent made possible by his mental ability and/or maturity.

IX. If a patient lacking legal competence is deemed capable of making rational medical decisions, his decisions shall be obeyed. That patient also has the right to prevent that information pertaining to him be conveyed to his legal guardian.

X. If the patient's legal guardian, or some other person so authorised by the patient, refuses treatment that, according to the opinion of the health care provider, lies in the best interests of the patient, the provider may question this decision in a court of law. In cases of emergency, the health care provider shall always act in the best interests of the patient, being ever vigilant in avoiding undue or unethical violation of his integrity.

Seeing as there is a need for this, considering the barbaric proposals of some UN members wishing to forcibly sterilise people or in other ways violate their rights to decide what happens to their own bodies, we welcome any sort of constructive input on this draft.

Fass, I love this and really hope it gets to the floor. I'm not experienced enough to comment on whether anything is missing or wrong. I like what it says and support it 100%.

We like this as well, Fass. Although it is not an issue that trascends national boundaries, we do see the need for it, given the recent proposals. We are also very happy to see that you included article VI: VI. If a legal guardian is not available and the need for medical treatment is of pressing emergency, the patient may be considered as having given consent unless it is clear and apparent beyond reasonable doubt that he through earlier utterances or convictions would have withheld consent in a similar situation. We have a law in Saint Uriel known as the "Code of St. Luke". It states that if someone provides emergency medical treatment in good faith to an unconcious or otherwise incapcitated person, then the treatment is deemed accepted, and the patient has no legal recourse to prosecute for non-consented treatment.

We agree with this proposal in general. However, We have a serious problem with one particular article:

IX. If a patient lacking legal competence is capable of making rational decisions, his decisions shall always be obeyed. The patient also has the right to prevent that information pertaining to him be conveyed to his legal guardian(s).

First, We should like to note that if a person lacks legal competence, then by definition his decisions can be overruled by his competent legal guardian. Second, allowing such a person to withhold important information such as medical status from their guardian defeats the entire purpose of legal guardianship--that is, to let someone who can make competent decisions make them for someone who can't.

We believe this particular article would be harmful to the very people this otherwise excellent proposal is trying to help.

Seeing as there is a need for this, considering the barbaric proposals of some UN members wishing to forcibly sterilise people or in other ways violate their rights to decide what happens to their own bodies, we welcome any sort of constructive input on this draft.

II. Every patient has the right to autonomy; to freely decide matters pertaining to his person or body. The health care provider shall inform the patient of the consequences of his decisions. - Would that be interpreted as allowing directed ("for pay") organ donation? Your quote above seems to say so, but it would be good to have it stated openly.

II. Every patient has the right to autonomy; to freely decide matters pertaining to his person or body. The health care provider shall inform the patient of the consequences of his decisions. - Would that be interpreted as allowing directed ("for pay") organ donation? Your quote above seems to say so, but it would be good to have it stated openly.

It doesn't outlaw it, if that's what you mean, but it doesn't mandate it either. That whole discussion is left to the individual nations to decide.

Two things (though there may well be other stuff I haven't seen) - otherwise I like this and stronly agree with the principle.

First, the part that the Eternal Kawaii brought up - I would amend that to say something like "If a patient lacking legal competence is deemed to have the capability and maturity to understand, and make rational decisions on, the treatment options available (including withholding treatment), his decisions shall always be obeyed."

Second:

VII. The health care provider shall, however, always attempt to save the life of a patient who is unconscious due to an attempted suicide. This provision does not apply to those patients exercising their rights under resolution #43, "Legalise Euthanasia".

A technical point here. Most people who undergo euthanasia or assisted suicide in _Myopia_ are not doing so under the auspices of res #43, as we use an interpretation of that resolution that effectively neutralises it in most cases, and apply our own laws instead, which grant different (often greater) rights. This part of the proposal would force us to restrict patients' rights to the vague and age-discriminatory allowances of that resolution. Plus, if #43 is repealed, your proposal would effectively make euthanasia impossible, as doctors would be obliged to attempt resuscitation after administering the dose of poison (or whatever other method is used).

The best replacement I can come up with is "This provision does not apply to patients undergoing euthanasia, assisted suicide, or similar via legal procedures."

First, We should like to note that if a person lacks legal competence, then by definition his decisions can be overruled by his competent legal guardian.Second, allowing such a person to withhold important information such as medical status from their guardian defeats the entire purpose of legal guardianship--that is, to let someone who can make competent decisions make them for someone who can't.

The paragraph before that outlines that the legal guardian is there only for those who are incapable of forming rational decisions. You cannot look at this paragraph without looking at the one that precedes it - they are symbiotic.

This paragraph is there for the reason that, for instance, minors, who are not legally competent, i.e. not the same legal persons as adults, can still be old and mature enough to make medical decisions, for instance a teenager wishing to have an abortion, without having to involve their parents for whatever reason. The guardian, as is clearly defined by the paragraph preceding the one you mention in combination with this one is made, as he should, only relevant when this rational decision-making ability is not there.

We believe this particular article would be harmful to the very people this otherwise excellent proposal is trying to help.

On the contrary - this helps adolescents maintain the right they have over their bodies and private lives, and gives them a way of not having to be subject to the whims of their parents.

I hope this was a helpful explanation.

EDIT: You may wish to review the new wording of the paragraph inspired by _Myopia_ and see if it is more agreeable to you.

Two things (though there may well be other stuff I haven't seen) - otherwise I like this and stronly agree with the principle.

First, the part that the Eternal Kawaii brought up - I would amend that to say something like "If a patient lacking legal competence is deemed to have the capability and maturity to understand, and make rational decisions on, the treatment options available (including withholding treatment), his decisions shall always be obeyed".

Good suggestion. I shall ruminate a bit on it.

Edit: I have, and have rewritten the draft to reflect a similar meaning. I cannot accept your whole suggestion as it makes the draft larger than the permitted 3500 characters, but I hope that the new wording is sufficient to reflect your suggestion.

A technical point here. Most people who undergo euthanasia or assisted suicide in _Myopia_ are not doing so under the auspices of res #43, as we use an interpretation of that resolution that effectively neutralises it in most cases, and apply our own laws instead, which grant different (often greater) rights. This part of the proposal would force us to restrict patients' rights to the vague and age-discriminatory allowances of that resolution. Plus, if #43 is repealed, your proposal would effectively make euthanasia impossible, as doctors would be obliged to attempt resuscitation after administering the dose of poison (or whatever other method is used).

The best replacement I can come up with is "This provision does not apply to patients undergoing euthanasia, assisted suicide, or similar via legal procedures."

You are absolutely correct there. The mention of resolution #43 was just there to make that compliant with it. Your replacement is better.

This paragraph is there for the reason that, for instance, minors, who are not legally competent, i.e. not the same legal persons as adults, can still be old and mature enough to make medical decisions, for instance a teenager wishing to have an abortion, without having to involve their parents for whatever reason. The guardian, as is clearly defined by the paragraph preceding the one you mention in combination with this one is made, as he should, only relevant when this rational decision-making ability is not there.

This would not pass muster in a courtroom in The Eternal Kawaii. We don't see how one can reasonably argue that a minor is both not legally competent and mature enough to make decisions such as in the scenario you describe here. In they were able to, they would be recognized as competent adults. The scenario you put forth would be considered a violation by the medical provider on the rights of the parent to care for the minor in question in the way they see best.

On the contrary - this helps adolescents maintain the right they have over their bodies and private lives, and gives them a way of not having to be subject to the whims of their parents.

Perhaps We are mistaken, but We read this comment to mean that the greater threat to the well-being of the adolescent comes from their parents rather than from outsiders. Why should any rational person assume this?

We do note that the rights of parents are preserved by Article VIII as you mentioned. However, We suspect Our interpretation of this article would be considerably different than your intent. In The Eternal Kawaii, parents obviously have much greater rights/authority/responsibility vis a vis their children than this proposal apparently assumes to be the norm among NationStates. We wish to ensure that this treasured cultural value is not trodden on by an otherwise well-drafted proposal.

This would not pass muster in a courtroom in The Eternal Kawaii. We don't see how one can reasonably argue that a minor is both not legally competent and mature enough to make decisions such as in the scenario you describe here. In they were able to, they would be recognized as competent adults.

Unless you lack a certain age of majority, this is what happens all the time when you do have such an age. If you do not have an age of majority, this does not affect you. If you do, this gives those who have not reached that age a possibility of obtaining rights due them ahead of time. This is also a safeguard for those declared incompetent by the government to have thier competence tried.

The scenario you put forth would be considered a violation by the medical provider on the rights of the parent to care for the minor in question in the way they see best.

The child's best interests are more important than the rights of the parents to wield their parental power.

Perhaps We are mistaken, but We read this comment to mean that the greater threat to the well-being of the adolescent comes from their parents rather than from outsiders. Why should any rational person assume this?

Because the interests of the parents do not always coincide with the best interests of the adolescent/child. To believe otherwise would make you irrational.

We do note that the rights of parents are preserved by Article VIII as you mentioned. However, We suspect Our interpretation of this article would be considerably different than your intent.

I beg your pardon, but are you actually saying that you would voluntarily interpret this proposal to be of disadvantage to you, for some unclear reason, and therefore you wish it to be changed?

In The Eternal Kawaii, parents obviously have much greater rights/authority/responsibility vis a vis their children than this proposal apparently assumes to be the norm among NationStates. We wish to ensure that this treasured cultural value is not trodden on by an otherwise well-drafted proposal.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030178&postcount=63
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26

What the parents want is not always in the best interests of the child. I am sorry, but this draft will not be changed regarding this. It will give children capable of making these decisions the means to make them. Their integrity outways parental power. That is a principle I am not ready to sacrifice.

Also, do bear in mind that this is a thread about the draft - how it can be changed, how it can be improved. The debate of children's rights and those of their parents is not really on-topic here, but is more suitable once it has been submitted and/or reached quorum.

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of everyone, who has not been found guilty of a crime where medical influence is a reasonable and/or ethical sequel to the crime, to decide what happens to his (or her or its) own body,

Why the exception?

REGRETTING recent attempts by certain UN members to violate the personal integrity that is inherent to every person,

Remove. It's a cheap shot at certain people and will only get you flamed. We have enough cheap shots in the UN without a proposal making them.

WISHING to further establish every person's rights pertaining to choice vis-à-vis medical treatment,

So far, so good.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:

"Patient" to be any person seeking, or subject to, by his own volition or not, medical care or intervention;
"Health care provider" to be any person, entity, institution or similar association whose profession or modus operandi is to offer any sort of medical treatment, mainstream or otherwise, whether they be found in the private or public sector;
"Treatment" to be any sort of diagnostic, physiological or therapeutic examination, test, treatment or such procedure available;

Include one about legal guardians.

The NSUN hereby declares that:

I. Every patient has the right to freely choose and/or change health care provider, as well as the right to seek the opinion of another health care provider.

Good.

II. Every patient has the right to autonomy; to freely decide matters pertaining to his person or body. The health care provider shall inform the patient of the consequences of his decisions.

Good.

III. Every mentally competent, adult patient has the right to refuse treatment. The patient has the right to access information that is vital for his right to take this decision and/or to clearly understand the purpose of any treatment.

An exception for plagues should be added. Otherwise, we will be forced to actively burn any nation infected with one to the ground to prevent it spreading to us. And, yes, we can do that from orbit.

IV. Every patient has the right to refuse to be subject to any medical research or training.

Good.

V. If the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of expressing his opinion, consent shall - where this is reasonably possible - be obtained from a legal guardian, primarily the closest family member.

Good. But you need to expand this.

VI. If a legal guardian is not available and the need for medical treatment is of pressing emergency, the patient may be considered as having given consent unless it is clear and apparent beyond reasonable doubt that he through earlier utterances or convictions would have withheld consent in a similar situation.

Good.

VII. The health care provider shall, however, always attempt to save the life of a patient who is unconscious due to an attempted suicide. This provision does not apply to patients undergoing euthanasia, assisted suicide, or similar via legal procedures.

Must disagree with this one. Considering euthanasia is legal, I see no reason to prevent people from self-euthanizing.

VIII. If a patient is a minor, or in some other similar way lacks legal competence, consent must be obtained from a legal guardian. The patient shall, however, take part in the decision making process to the highest extent made possible by his mental ability and/or maturity.

Good.

IX. If a patient lacking legal competence is deemed capable of making rational medical decisions, his decisions shall be obeyed. That patient also has the right to prevent that information pertaining to him be conveyed to his legal guardian.

Hmm. Iffy on this one.

X. If the patient's legal guardian, or some other person so authorised by the patient, refuses treatment that, according to the opinion of the health care provider, lies in the best interests of the patient, the provider may question this decision in a court of law. In cases of emergency, the health care provider shall always act in the best interests of the patient, being ever vigilant in avoiding undue or unethical violation of his integrity.

Hmm. Iffy on this one as well.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030178&postcount=63
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029638&postcount=26

What the parents want is not always in the best interests of the child. I am sorry, but this draft will not be changed regarding this. It will give children capable of making these decisions the means to make them. Their integrity outways parental power. That is a principle I am not ready to sacrifice.

Then you are saying that the State knows better how to raise a child than that child's parents. This is a principle We are not ready to embrace. We note your references and also note that they are not at issue here. We in the Eternal Kawaii do not practice barbarities upon Our children. Indeed, We go out of Our way to protect them. That includes protecting them from predatory State practices. Their integrity is best preserved by parental power, not despite it.

We are sorry if we will be unable to support this proposal as written. It is in all other respects a very good proposal. It, however, contains assumptions about the nature of the family that Our nation is not willing to accept.

On the whole, very good. However, I agree with DLE on this: REGRETTING recent attempts by certain UN members to violate the personal integrity that is inherent to every person, Get rid of it, it's uneccesary and takes up characters.

V. If the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of expressing his opinion, consent shall - where this is reasonably possible - be obtained from a legal guardian, primarily the closest family member. Does a partner count as a family member? What about if they are not in some sort of legal partnership? Maybe a phrase leaving the definition of 'family' up to the nations should be added. Possibly this should go in the 'definitions' section.

Why the exception?

Some nations use medical procedures as punishments for crimes, for instance rape or molestation. While Fass doesn't do that, it is not our wish to interfere with other nations who do. At least not in this resolution, anyway.

Remove. It's a cheap shot at certain people and will only get you flamed. We have enough cheap shots in the UN without a proposal making them.

Hmm, this not being a clear supranational matter, there is a need for explaining why the UN should act to protect these rights, as they seem to be under attack. It will not be a secret that this resolution is a reaction to the actions of those nations. I don't view it as a cheap shot, in light of that. Although, it's not vital, so it could be axed for something a bit more diplomatic. I'll have to think a bit more about such a formulation...

Include one about legal guardians.

Seeing as family constellations and legal systems are so different everywhere, I thought that was best left up to the individual nations. Do you have a suggestion as to how to formulate such a definition that would cover all those "but my nation does it this way, with gnomes, and magic, and high tech and whatever" types of people?

An exception for plagues should be added. Otherwise, we will be forced to actively burn any nation infected with one to the ground to prevent it spreading to us. And, yes, we can do that from orbit.

You make a good point. I don't have time to add such a section tonight, so I'll do it later. I was thinking about a line going something like "This provision does not apply when there is a clear and present threat of an epidemic, or other similar threats to public health." Sufficient?

Good. But you need to expand this.

How, exactly?

The 3500 character limit is, well, limiting... :(

Must disagree with this one. Considering euthanasia is legal, I see no reason to prevent people from self-euthanizing.

It's there so as not to violate the Hippocratic oath. Suicide is not euthanasia (euthanasia is usually understood to be the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy), and in the majority of cases suicide attempts are cries for help - as the persons are unconscious, there is no way of knowing if they truly want to die or not. Erring on the side of caution and saving them would be preferable, no?

Then you are saying that the State knows better how to raise a child than that child's parents. This is a principle We are not ready to embrace. We note your references and also note that they are not at issue here. We in the Eternal Kawaii do not practice barbarities upon Our children. Indeed, We go out of Our way to protect them. That includes protecting them from predatory State practices. Their integrity is best preserved by parental power, not despite it.

This whole paragraph of yours falls with the simple fact that it would not be the state, but the children/adolescents who would be requesting to make the decision.

We are sorry if we will be unable to support this proposal as written. It is in all other respects a very good proposal. It, however, contains assumptions about the nature of the family that Our nation is not willing to accept.

I doubt your children are automatons whose views and best interests always coincide with those of their parents. If this passes, it will give them the freedom they seem to lack now, and that would make the people of Fass very glad.

On the whole, very good. However, I agree with DLE on this: Get rid of it, it's uneccesary and takes up characters.

As mentioned to DLE, this motivates why this action is need by the UN, as the rights seem to be under attack. Another way of expressing this motivation would be welcome.

Does a partner count as a family member? What about if they are not in some sort of legal partnership? Maybe a phrase leaving the definition of 'family' up to the nations should be added. Possibly this should go in the 'definitions' section.

Anything not defined in resolutions is up to you to define (within reason and precluding god-modding that is) - at least that has been my impression of how things work. There are previous resolutions that define marriages and such, so that's not the scope of this. Respecting those resolutions, what counts as a family member or legal guardian is up to you to decide (again, within reason and precluding god-modding).

Some nations use medical procedures as punishments for crimes, for instance rape or molestation. While Fass doesn't do that, it is not our wish to interfere with other nations who do. At least not in this resolution, anyway.

Then make an exception for court-ordered punishments.

Hmm, this not being a clear supranational matter, there is a need for explaining why the UN should act to protect these rights, as they seem to be under attack. It will not be a secret that this resolution is a reaction to the actions of those nations. I don't view it as a cheap shot, in light of that. Although, it's not vital, so it could be axed for something a bit more diplomatic. I'll have to think a bit more about such a formulation...

Add in some whinejob about people in some nations not getting fair medical treatment.

Seeing as family contellations and legal systems are so different everywhere, I thought that was best left up to the individual nations. Do you have a suggestion as to how to formulate such a definition that would cover all those "but my nation does it this way, with gnomes, and magic, and high tech and whatever" types of people?

The words "recognized by law" tend to help.

You make a good point. I don't have time to add such a section tonight, so I'll do it later. I was thinking about a line going something like "This provision does not apply when there is a clear and present threat of an epidemic, or other similar threats to public health." Sufficient?

Yes. Thank you.

How, exactly?

The 3500 character limit is, well, limiting... :(

You need examples of a person being unable to express his will. Keep in mind that something who has been forcibly gagged by the doctors is incapable of expressing their will.

It's there so as not to violate the Hippocratic oath. Suicide is not euthanasia (euthanasia is usually understood toi be the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy), and in the majority of cases sucide attempts are cries for help - as the persons are unconsious, there is no way of knowing if they truly want to die or not. Erring on the side of caution and saving them would be preferable, no?

Unfortunately, the Hippocratic Oath isn't really that common to NS, even with UN laws on the subject. That is where you run into questions about the necessity of it.

As mentioned to DLE, this motivates why this action is need by the UN, as the rights seem to be under attack. Another way of expressing this motivation would be welcome. How about adding 'PRESERVING' to the first line- so ACKNOWLEDGING and PRESERVING...? This would seem to work for me.



Anything not defined in resolutions is up to you to define (within reason and precluding god-modding that is) - at least that has been my impression of how things work. There are previous resolutions that define marriages and such, so that's not the scope of this. Respecting those resolutions, what counts as a family member or legal guardian is up to you to decide (again, within reason and precluding god-modding).
Ok, fair enough.

This whole paragraph of yours falls with the simple fact that it would not be the state, but the children/adolescents who would be requesting to make the decision.

Which means placing responsibilities upon people who by definition are incapable of assuming them. We fail to see how this promotes the welfare of children and adolescents.

I doubt your children are automatons whose views and best interests always coincide with those of their parents. If this passes, it will give them the freedom they seem to lack now, and that would make the people of Fass very glad.

This should be a discussion about medical rights, not about differing ways of raising a family. The good people of Fass should be more concerned with their own offspring's well-being rather than with critiquing the child-rearing practices of The Eternal Kawaii.

For the sake of good relations, and in the best interest of the proposal in general, We ask you to rethink this article. The Eternal Kawaii does not wish to violate Fass's principles regarding human rights and the best ways they may be protected. We merely ask that you consider Our principles and try not to intrude upon them.

Which means placing responsibilities upon people who by definition are incapable of assuming them. We fail to see how this promotes the welfare of children and adolescents.

So, wait, governments are incapable of making decisions with the best interest of their people in mind? Wow, an anarchy arguement.

This should be a discussion about medical rights, not about differing ways of raising a family. The good people of Fass should be more concerned with their own offspring's well-being rather than with critiquing the child-rearing practices of The Eternal Kawaii.

The two are interlinked. How children are raised reflects in part on how healthy they are encouraged to be.

For the sake of good relations, and in the best interest of the proposal in general, We ask you to rethink this article. The Eternal Kawaii does not wish to violate Fass's principles regarding human rights and the best ways they may be protected. We merely ask that you consider Our principles and try not to intrude upon them.

And we remind you that Fass is an ally of ours. Something to think about if you attack them.

As it is, we do not believe your principles to be in the best interest of your people or the UN. But, we are not in the business of removing governments... yet. As it stands, we feel that Fass's principles best reflect the true spirit of the UN for this and do not see a reason the draft should be changed. Plus, it does teach responsibility to children.

And we remind you that Fass is an ally of ours. Something to think about if you attack them.

Apparently We missed something here. Did you interpret Our response as a threat? We sincerely hope not; it was supposed to be a plea for amicable co-existence. We apologize if it was clumsily worded. The Eternal Kawaii does not issue threats; that's simply rude.

Apparently We missed something here. Did you interpret Our response as a threat? We sincerely hope not; it was supposed to be a plea for amicable co-existence. We apologize if it was clumsily worded. The Eternal Kawaii does not issue threats; that's simply rude.

A misinterpretation of intentions was all. No apology is needed, as no harm was done.

I was thinking about a line going something like "This provision does not apply when there is a clear and present threat of an epidemic, or other similar threats to public health." Sufficient?

This doesn't specify that the epidemic must be contagious, highly dangerous, or that the patient in question must be suffering from the epidemic illness. It would be possible for governments to override everyone's right to refuse treatment due to an epidemic of the common cold, or of obesity. Similar threats to public health is also vague - if you interpret similar as meaning of similar danger, you could include natural hazards such as volcanos.

It needs revising - perhaps "Governments may choose to suspend this right where refusal of a treatment could aid the spread of a highly dangerous contagion." That way, it allows for both forced preventative measures (such as mandatory vaccinations) and forced treatment of an already-infected patient, but maintains some threshold of danger.