NationStates Jolt Archive


SUBMITTED: Experimentation on a Person

Dancing Bananland
06-05-2006, 00:52
Four drafts later, and I've submitted it. Thought is should have a new thread now that it's been submitted.

BELIEVING that scientific experimentation on unwilling or unknowing persons is wrong.

BELIEVING 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, behavioral 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 individual separated 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 Impaired Person (DIP)" as a human/sentient being mentally 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 consent.

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 consent, 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 consent 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, including but not limited to: time frame, chemicals involved, experiment success/failure 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 equivalent 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.
Zeldon 6229 Nodlez
06-05-2006, 23:34
EXCLUDING for this proposal fetus, stem cells, and individual separated body parts from the above definition.
This is going to be a real problem as long as these items are a part of that person. As this means to me that I can go and just get them from an individual without following the proposal. You should drop this and leave them protected as part of the person.. or until such person gives consent for their removal for outside the person experimetation. Here it to me means I can take a fetus from the mother because it EXCLUDED from this proposal.
[QUOTE]MANDATING that consent for any experimentation on a fetus or egg or other equivalent factor in reproduction be relegated to the mother, with the application of the relevant above articles.[QUOTE]
Also this may conflict with your EXCLUSION of the fetus earlier in the proposal. As now you have INCLUDED the fetus and given say to the mother over it. So what part of the proposal do we follow? The EXCLUSION or INCLUSION of the fetus.

Also to avoid a problem with what is a sentient being would think that just using the term person would be all you needed. As in some you mention person, human, sentient being then others sections might only mention person and human or human and sentient being.. While in others you just use person. Stick with just person.. and define PERSON: as a citizen/resident of NSUN member nations or future citizen/resident of that nation once they have meet national requirements for citizenship/residency of any NSUN member nation. As this would cover all people/persons living in a nation and meet the idea that some nations may not give out citizenship but have residency; as well as any who travel between nations under NS UN and may not be citizen/resident of the nation they visit.

As for those people from other than UN member nations. Drop the NS UN member and define as simply citizen/resident of any nation or future c/r any nation. Know we can't make non UN member nations follow resolutions but members must follow UN resolutions so it they say not to go to a non member nation to get person for experimenting on then.. we can't go there. Even it don't stop them from coming in and taking person they may need from us.
Dancing Bananland
07-05-2006, 01:44
What it says is that A fetus/egg/etc... is not a person but a body part, and that experimentation on it is relegated to the owner of said body part. I just thought it needed special mention as some nations have wierd definitions of what is/isn't a person regarding a fetus etc...I also just thought that body parts, seperated from the living whole, are free game...