NationStates Jolt Archive

[DRAFT 4]

Human Experimentation Act
A resolution

BELEIVING that scientific experimentation on unwilling or unkowing persons is wrong.

BELEIVING that the use of humans incapable of choosing, or understanding the choice, of volunteering for experimentation is wrong.

DEFINING "scientific experimentation on a person" as the testing of chemicals upon, dissection, study, genetic modification, or other alteration, modification, experimentation, behavioural modification, situation modification, or other investigative probing/testing/experimentation on a living human being or other person/sentient being.

EXCLUDING for this proposal fetus, stem cells, and indevidual seperated body parts from the above definition.

DECLARING that the above definition does not include everyday benign tests such as censuses, IQ tests, tests of knowledge, ability, comprehension or other such tests.

DECLARING that the above definition excludes everyday benign health status tests such as blood tests, DNA tests,heart-rate tests, disease tests or any other such benign, standard form of testing or information gathering.

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "Decision Impared Person (DIP)" as a human/sentient being mentaly incapable of understanding the results and implications of experimentation. Such as someone whom is autistic, retarded, mentally ill, intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance.

MANDATING that no human may be experimented on without explicitly given conscent.

MANDATING that any person may refuse consent after having given it, at any point, except in the case where refusal will result in death due to an incomplete experiment or study, where they must be informed of the possibility of death

MANDATING that no child may be experimented on without parent/guardian conscent, and that governments take measures to assure that consenting parents have the child's best interests in mind, and that the experiment does not pose serious risk to the child.

MANDATING that no mentally ill or Decision Impaired Person may be experimented upon without conscent of a parent, guardian, or close relative, if none is available, they will not be experimented upon.

MANDATING that no person may be forced or coerced by employers, military superiors, government officials or anybody else to participate in experimentation.

MANDATING that all mentally capable people who volunteer for experimentation be made fully aware of all parameters of said experiment, inclduing but not limited to: time frame, chemicals involved, experiment success/falure rates, possible risks and known/suspected side-effects, and research purpose of the experiment.

MANDATING that consent for any experimentation on a fetus or egg or other equivelent factor in reproduction be relegated to the mother, with the application of the relevant above articles.

FOUNDS the HEO (Human Experimentation Organization) directed by the UN to:
I- Insure the above legislation is followed.
II- Look into safer methods of experimentation, and alternate means than human or animal testing.
III- Lobby UN and Non-UN nations for minimum safety standards for experiments.
IV- Co-operate with UN and non-UN nations to produce safer and more comfortable experimentation environments.



well, thats it, any suggestions?

Oh, ignore the spelling problems I'll do it myself later.

1. No mention (outside a vague note of "other" testing) of social, developmental, behavioral or psychological research.
2. No mention of IRBs to ensure all human testing is conducted ethically, responsibly and within the bounds of acceptable scientific practices.
3. Without defining a human being, you may be de-facto banning stem-cell research.
[EDIT:
[4. Oh, yeah, and what about cadaver research, or even autopsies? You forgot to qualify a living human being.]

Needs work.

The States of Unity is AGAINST this proposal.

MANDATING that any human may refuse consent after having given it, at any point, except in the case where refusal will result in death due to an incomplete experiment or study.
If they give consent, they should not be allowed to repeal it.

MANDATING that no child, mentally ill or otherwise Decision Impaired Person may be experimented on, ever.
Parental consent?

___

Bottom line: Needs some work. Sorry. Again, AGAINST.

BELEIVING that scientific experimentation on unwilling or unkowing humans is wrong.

BELEIVING that the use of humans incapable of choosing, or understanding the choice, of volunteering for experimentation is wrong.

I'll accept the preamble as is. I may not agree with it personally, but I've been told that I need to seek help as it regards moral issues. I'm not sure why. What would I do with an assistant anyways?

DEFINING "scientific experimentation on a human" as the testing of chemicals upon, dissection, study, genetic modification, or other alteration, modification, experimentation or testing on a human being (Homo Sapiens).

My only main issues here are that it includes a few items that could impair certain aspects of the scientific progress or activities within certain nations. In particular, by banning dissection, one outlaws autopsies (vivisection is the term to apply to living subjects), genetic modification would cause Kivisto to completely rearrange some of our military recruiting techniques (as it is done to the embryo of foetus).

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "Decision Impared Person (DIP)" as a human mentaly incapable of understanding the results and implications of experimentation. Such as someone whom is autistic, retarded, mentally ill, intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance.

A necessary clarification. Thank you.

MANDATING that no human may be experimented on without explicitly given conscent.

Good.

MANDATING that any human may refuse consent after having given it, at any point, except in the case where refusal will result in death due to an incomplete experiment or study.

Two issues. One small - it could be argued that once consent has been given freely, they have engaged in a binding contract.
One not so small - If retraction of consent is to be allowed, perhaps if it is necessary to ensure the comprehension of the subject before allowing them to withdraw said consent in the event of possible death or dismemberment as a result of an incomplete experiment or study. They may wish to die rather than go on.

MANDATING that no child, mentally ill or otherwise Decision Impaired Person may be experimented on, ever.

No personal issues with this one.

MANDATING that no person may boe forced or coerced by employers, military superiors, government officials or anybody else to participate in experimentation.

In bold is the only area I might take issue with. It is not the same for all governments or militaries, but, in Kivisto, members of our armed forces sign waivers regarding their rights as a whole before enlisting or being recruited, with only the rarest of exceptions. They are there to serve and protect us as a whole in whatever way we see fit to use them. We won't throw their lives away carelessly, as it is difficult to find those patriotic and brave enough to fill their role, but I would be lying if I were to say that they don't undergo certain amounts of peril on a day to day basis whether there is war or not.

MANDATING that all mentally capable people who volunteer for experimentation be made fully aware of all parameters of said experiment, inclduing but not limited to: time frame, chemicals involved, experiment success/falure rates, possible risks and known/suspected side-effects, and research purpose of the experiment.

Good.

Further curiousity... If I were to declare the criminals of Kivisto as sub-human, would I be able to use them, or would I be entering into cruel and Unusual areas?

[DRAFT 1]

Human Experimentation Act
A resolution

BELEIVING that scientific experimentation on unwilling or unkowing humans is wrong.

BELEIVING that the use of humans incapable of choosing, or understanding the choice, of volunteering for experimentation is wrong.

DEFINING "scientific experimentation on a human" as the testing of chemicals upon, dissection, study, genetic modification, or other alteration, modification, experimentation or testing on a human being (Homo Sapiens).

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "Decision Impared Person (DIP)" as a human mentaly incapable of understanding the results and implications of experimentation. Such as someone whom is autistic, retarded, mentally ill, intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance.

MANDATING that no human may be experimented on without explicitly given conscent.

MANDATING that any human may refuse consent after having given it, at any point, except in the case where refusal will result in death due to an incomplete experiment or study.

MANDATING that no child, mentally ill or otherwise Decision Impaired Person may be experimented on, ever.

MANDATING that no person may boe forced or coerced by employers, military superiors, government officials or anybody else to participate in experimentation.

MANDATING that all mentally capable people who volunteer for experimentation be made fully aware of all parameters of said experiment, inclduing but not limited to: time frame, chemicals involved, experiment success/falure rates, possible risks and known/suspected side-effects, and research purpose of the experiment.



well, thats it, any suggestions?

Oh, ignore the spelling problems I'll do it myself later.Are you British? Because this is reminding me of a documentary I saw on TV a few days back.

I thought it might be a good inspiration for a proposal.

What if you were coerced into experiment by a military inferior?

They can't coerce you using their military rank. It would have to be through other means, or they'd be your superior.

MANDATING that any human may refuse consent after having given it, at any point, except in the case where refusal will result in death due to an incomplete experiment or study.

The exception should be left up to individual states to decide.

I will be for this proposal when my and the already stated changes are made.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations.

DEFINING "scientific experimentation on a human" as the testing of chemicals upon, dissection, study, genetic modification, or other alteration, modification, experimentation or testing on a human being (Homo Sapiens)..


Now we can put Homo Sapiens (humans) up there with Dolphins. What needs protection next Dogs or Cats? What about the Zombie Children? When do they get their proposal to protect them?

Since this one singles out Homo Sapiens (humans) it gives them protections over some other living creatures that may also have need of protection from this. As not all UN member nations have human citizens thus how much of the polulation of UN member nations is human compared to the rest of it? Should we not be trying to protect 100% not some small part of it?

True, but I wanted to avoid venturing into "robots, clones, aliens" territory, where it gets all muddy and confusing...leading to loopholes. I'll try and think of something.

Kivisto said:
Further curiousity... If I were to declare the criminals of Kivisto as sub-human, would I be able to use them, or would I be entering into cruel and Unusual areas?


Nope, it clearly says homo-sapiens up there, I added that for a reason.

Now we can put Homo Sapiens (humans) up there with Dolphins. What needs protection next Dogs or Cats? What about the Zombie Children? When do they get their proposal to protect them?WHAT DO WE WANT?

ZOMBIE RIGHTS!

WHEN DO WE WANT THEM?

NOW!

Greetings,

Yours is a valiant proposal. I would revise the ban on DIPs (excluding those intoxicated) to fit that of children. Typically if a person is deemed incapable of making decisions for themselves, they have a legal representative. Suppose a medical procedure has been certified to begin human experimentation: a DIP may be the only relevent subject for such experiment. In this case I believe the DIP's legal representative should be analagous to a child's parent; capable of making the decision and represents the DIP's best interests. Perhaps a later proposal should define a certification process.

-Brandon Burum

WHAT DO WE WANT?

ZOMBIE RIGHTS!

WHEN DO WE WANT THEM?

NOW!


Looks like they are some place on a list below dolpins, whales, and now homo saphiens... So in time guess somebody will get to them..

True, but I wanted to avoid venturing into "robots, clones, aliens" territory, where it gets all muddy and confusing...leading to loopholes. I'll try and think of something.
I would suggest you read Resolution #56 and tell me what a PERSON is as defined by you.. you will find it below.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.
Votes For: 12,135
Votes Against: 4,726
Implemented: Thu May 6 2004

Also if you define PERSON as HUMAN then you have to include CLONES when you talk about them or give them something in a proposal or you discriminate against them by leaving them out.

I would think that the term PERSON would cover any lifeform who is a citizen of a UN member nation.. regardless of what they might be called... Human, Zombie, Gnome, or whatever...

Note in R56 that there are four distinct lifeforms noted..
1) Clones
2) Genetically Engineer Persons
These two gain the rights of the other two
3) Naturaly born persons
4) Unmodified persons

Depending on how one defines Robots they could well fit into 2 or 4..

As for Aliens not all member nations of the UN live on one planet where those humans live. Even all of the humans don't live on one planet so would be aliens to another world. Even citizens of your nations are aliens to my nation.. regardless that we may well be on same world and right next to each other on it. So aliens should not be a problem between UN member nations as all of them are aliens to the other.

As the people of Zeldon are Alien to the planet they now live on and also several generations along as clones we fit Alien Clone to you and anyone not from our nation, thus are not human..

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "Decision Impared Person (DIP)" as a human/sentient being mentaly incapable of understanding the results and implications of experimentation. Such as someone whom is autistic, retarded, mentally ill, intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance.

What about research into ways of curing the conditions that are currently making them "Decision Impaired"?

Under the current draft, it appears to ban any form of double-blind testing. People are, after all, unaware of whether they are actually being tested and studied. A loophole you will likely want to clear up.

This could also ban things like census data (included within 'studies'), or gathering information on traffic flow and other related matters.

How about 'Medical Necessity'? It has to be sanctioned by the courts but medics sometimes act against the wishes of the guardian if they feel it is the right thing to do.

ooc: ie. Re A, the case of the Siamese twins from Greece(?) whose parents brought them to England for seperation. The Docs said they could only save one and the parents refused. The court overruled, it was murder, but justified by Medical Necessity.

ic: Perhaps you could expand it to just The Experimentation Act, with rules of the full disclosure of any risks that could be involved, and the right of any person to be allowed to participate in a clinical trial as long as they meet the health criteria, and not locational barriers etc

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "Decision Impared Person (DIP)" as a human/sentient being mentaly incapable of understanding the results and implications of experimentation. Such as someone whom is autistic, retarded, mentally ill, intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance.

OOC: Most unfortunate acronym ever. Funniest, though, goes to the RAF's Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM). :D

Please note the first post is continually being updated, so check every-so-often to see if your concerns have been addressed, it is currently at Draft 3.

As for the acronym, it was not entirely unintentional, and it does somewhat fit what it stands for...making it easy to remember.

Experimentation on a living human being (Homo Sapiens) or other person/sentient being.
This now sounds really heavy. Perhaps just cut it down to 'on any person or sentient being.' This would then catch any species able to consent, or more appropriately, withhold consent. Remembering that in some nations, not only are non-homo sapiens in charge, they might consider homo sapiens as 'dinner'.

(btw. note 'consent' has only one 'c', don't forget that spell checker before you submit.)

Having defined DIP you then went on to use the full title. Seems unnecessary.

I think the stem cell research needs an express clause, otherwise you might accidentally legalise foetus experimentation if you only make it a 'person'. I'm not too good at drafting but perhaps something along the lines of...
'EXCLUDING BUT RECOMMENDING restrictions on experimentation upon stem cells and reproductive cells before fertilisation.
RECOMMENDING a ban on post-fertilisation experimentation, until the limit where abortion is no longer allowed in the relevant state, where they automatically become a person and therefore under juristiction of this resolution.'

'EXCLUDING BUT RECOMMENDING restrictions on experimentation upon stem cells and reproductive cells before fertilisation.
RECOMMENDING a ban on post-fertilisation experimentation, until the limit where abortion is no longer allowed in the relevant state, where they automatically become a person and therefore under juristiction of this resolution.'

As believe the issue of when a fetus becomes a living being is still being debated and has not been established this is getting to involved in that issue. Thus needs to be in another proposal dealing when life is life.

DEFINING "scientific experimentation on a human" as the testing of chemicals upon, dissection

Also as the reproductive cells are inside and part of a person then they should be included in rules on that person; because to remove (dissection) them would require okay from that person. Or they could to me be 'experimenting' on that person taking samples (dissection) from them of any materials from their body in violation of this proposal.. The same would apply to entering any substance (testing chemicals - like entering same reproductive cells since they are 'chemical' in nature would fit here) into the person without consent of that person or their guardian.

Exactly, I'm putting it at the same level each state has their abortion laws. If they ban abortion then the foetus is always a person. If they allow third trimester abortions it's not a person until it is born. It is avoiding the problem of imposing a standard of 'personage' that conflicts with the ALC.

The Rogue Nation of Evil Satanic OzMonkeys is FOR this proposal.

Nope, it clearly says homo-sapiens up there, I added that for a reason.


Good Call. Thank you.

[DRAFT 4]
EXCLUDING for this proposal fetus, stem cells, and indevidual seperated body parts from the above definition.

The inclusion of fetus in this resolution is a problem for my nation, since we define a fetus as a person

--Rooty

The inclusion of fetus in this resolution is a problem for my nation, since we define a fetus as a person

--Rooty
By explicitly excluding it from the proposal, it falls under national law. It's still your nation's decision, not the UN's.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Greetings,

Thank you for making the change for DIPs and consent. There is one more change I would make to this resolution: remove the clause about looking into safer experimentation from the HEO's tasklist. Safer methods tend to be more cost effective/profitable and scientists will invent these methods for that reason. Medical doctors also take an oath which mandates the use of only the safest methods. Limiting the HEO to being current (instead of looking into) on best safe methods and assessing compliance should focus efforts to create an efficient agency rather than wasting the agencies budget on projects scientists are currently developing.

Brandon Burum

The inclusion of fetus in this resolution is a problem for my nation, since we define a fetus as a person

--Rooty


Again one has to remove (disection) the fetus from the person before they can use it for experimentation thus not legal without the consent of that person under this. Also putting fetal material in any person would be illegal since it's a chemical by nature or would most likely be processed to a chemical form.. and testing of chemicals in persons is not legal by this again without their consent. Or in event they can't consent for reason a guardian or somebody who can. Thus as long as the fetus at any state in developement is in the person it can't be touched for experimentation on it. Once it comes out it's a person thus comes under the proposal as such on it's own.

The only thing see this doing is stopping forced abortions as must get mother's consent to do one.. Or again person who may be her guardian is she can't do that. As can consider them experiments and thus not allowed under this...

You're forgetting that some states have external wombs.

You're forgetting that some states have external wombs.

OOC: Oh, FFS...

By explicitly excluding it from the proposal, it falls under national law. It's still your nation's decision, not the UN's.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United NationsIf anyone tried to force my population to comply with the wishes of an external government, that external government would find themselves short one live national leader.

It's not quite true in the reverse, but lets not get into that discussion.

OOC: Oh, FFS...
ooc: Well ok, I'm making an assumption. But if you're including clones, it's likely that at least part of the process, if not all, is outside a 'mother'.
No point being pedantic by halves.
And it's fun tearing arguments to pieces with one idea.

Updated.