NationStates Jolt Archive

This Resolution has to go. Resolution Title Syndrome struck hard with this one, and I don't currently see any efforts on this forum here that lead me to believe that a repeal attempt is not yet being made.

The Resolution as written:


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive;

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their needs, the development of their treatment plans and to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;

FURTHER ASSERTING that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

The General Assembly of the United Nations declares that:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.
(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

(IV) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved.

(V) Patients have the right to know by name the persons directly and personally involved in their care.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

(X) In cases involving adult conjoined twins who are both capable of exercising their rights under this act, acceptance or refusal of treatment shall be required of each twin. In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

Co-Authored by: Waterana

Votes For: 9,124
Votes Against: 4,176

Implemented: Thu May 25 2006


Is there an attempt currently to strike this out?

If there is not, I want to get the ball rolling. There are a couple of problems with this otherwise fine Resolution that are irreconcilable.

Most specifically these two clauses:

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.
(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

In regards to the second Clause:
There are no exceptions made for medical procedures not sanctioned by any reputable medical associations, for cases where a patient requests medical procedures that they do not need, and that may in fact cause complications (such as a lobotomy, triple by-pass surgery, liver transplant, etc.). This is unacceptable and is in and of itself a critical enough point of failure in the Resolution to necessitate a Repeal.

In regards to the seventh Clause:
There are no exceptions made for legal investigations, subpoenas, court orders, warrants, and the like. This also prevents the necessary review of patient records in such cases where the safety of individuals depends on knowledge of diseases or conditions that a patient has, though many of these cases are related to the aforementioned list of legal demands.

So can we get the ball rolling on this if it hasn't already? If I have to author a Repeal, I suppose I will, but I'm not thrilled about the idea. Me being a Proposal virgin and all. Some opinions would be appreciated.



Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
Delegate from the North Sea

Consider the ball rolled. We will support a repeal of UNR #100-something, Patients Rights Act.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

I'll start working on writing it then. I've gone this far, I might as well spearhead it.

In the meantime, I welcome opinions, feedback, suggestions, and co-authorship. I'll try to get this written in a timely manner so we can see a draft and figure it all out from there.

You've got my support on this as well.

So can we get the ball rolling on this if it hasn't already? If I have to author a Repeal, I suppose I will, but I'm not thrilled about the idea. Me being a Proposal virgin and all. Some opinions would be appreciated.

Do it!
You know you always wanted to.
(Ah why listen to me? I'm a proposal virgin as well.)

II is a valid concern.

VII.....that's fairly normal. I can never support such a claim.

II is a valid concern.

I agree, and this should probably be the thrust of any repeal attempt.

VII.....that's fairly normal. I can never support such a claim.

Eh, there are certain situations, which I believe Ausser (?) pointed out during the floor debate, in which this is problematic as well.

I see Norderia's logic, but I don't agree that it's enough to justify a repeal. We have far worse resolutions on the books (ALC, the now thankfully in the process of being repealed "Replanting Trees", etc) and I think we should accept that no resolution is perfect and leave it there.

I wouldn't vote either way in a repeal, if it came to quorum, but wouldn't exactly be helping a repeal proposal along its way.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

:rolleyes:

Ausserland supports a repeal of this well-intentioned, generally worthwhile, but dangerously flawed resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't know, this isn't an all round bad resolution...in fact aside from those two clauses it is quite a good one. However, I suppose that there isn't any great chance of a counter-initative replacement going in, so I owuldn't worry if this where off the shelf for too long. Then, back on the other side of the coin, Campadria has a oint that there are a lot worse resolutions...alot...that still need repealing.

I don't know.

With permission from the R159 writers, I would rewrite the Resolution using much of the same wording. It is a Resolution worth having, but unfortunately, the problems it has, though few, are fatal flaws that render it repealable.

There are some Resolutions that need to be repealed, some that may be deemed more important to repeal, but I found this one to be especially abrasive. So I am writing a repeal for it. Perhaps if I have a knack for this, I'll be participating more frequently in the cleansing of the UN books.

This is also my first attempt. I don't want to tackle the major jobs until I've had a crash course. I think this one will prove worthy.

This is also my first attempt. I don't want to tackle the major jobs until I've had a crash course. I think this one will prove worthy.

If you want a crash course, this is not it. Go after one of the really awful old resolutions. This resolution, like I said, is pretty solid outside those two clauses and would actually prove alot harder to repeal then alot of other stuff.

I need to clarify.

I don't want a controversial, difficult to grasp kind of Proposal.

But I don't want a cake-walk. I'm confident enough that this middle ground here will be sufficient.

I also argued the topic quite thoroughly when the Resolution was at vote, so it's still fresh in my mind. I'll let R&R work on those other cake-walk no-brainer repeals. And besides, ball's already rolling.

If you want a good patients right act (which R159 is not) you have to go in both directions. Like it or not, the quality of the doctor or hospital can make a significant difference in the post treatment condition of the patient. Knowing a person's name just doesn't cut it.

Thus there needs to be a blanance between privacy and needs to know. What is the rate of Staff Infection in the hospital? What is the performance rate of the operating doctor? What about the assisting medical technicians?

There needs to be the understanding that there are three kinds of treatment; approved treatment which should be the norm for options; expermental treatment which should be availble in either research studies or in cases where no approved treatments are avilable and treatments that are just out and out quackery and should never be allowed for any reason whatsoever.

There are a few other elements that need to be addressed in the resolution that are simply either not there or are addressed wrongly. Throwing in living wills and wills to live and other proxy rights would be a plus.

If you want a good patients right act (which R159 is not) you have to go in both directions. Like it or not, the quality of the doctor or hospital can make a significant difference in the post treatment condition of the patient. Knowing a person's name just doesn't cut it.

Thus there needs to be a blanance between privacy and needs to know. What is the rate of Staff Infection in the hospital? What is the performance rate of the operating doctor? What about the assisting medical technicians?

There needs to be the understanding that there are three kinds of treatment; approved treatment which should be the norm for options; expermental treatment which should be availble in either research studies or in cases where no approved treatments are avilable and treatments that are just out and out quackery and should never be allowed for any reason whatsoever.

There are a few other elements that need to be addressed in the resolution that are simply either not there or are addressed wrongly. Throwing in living wills and wills to live and other proxy rights would be a plus.


This is good stuff here. When (and if) R159 goes to repeal, there will be a lot of hub-bub about a replacement. I am going to be focusing on the repeal, but hopefully a replacement can be in the preliminary works at the time of the repeal so that the concerns about a replacement can be answered, suggestions can be made, and people won't be so afraid of repealing 159. Would you be willing to help out with the replacement, provided the repeal gets put to a vote?

Sure, I would be happy to help.

The nation of James_xeno land would support a repeal of the "PRA."

While I see the problems with Article II, I do not see that as enough to require a repeal. There are other issues with Article VII, though it is the position of (two of) the Triumvirs of Enn to support the sentiments of this Article.

As such, I cannot offer Enn's support to a repeal of this resolution. Equally, I cannot say whether Enn would stand opposed to your repeal - it would come down to a Triumvirate debate as to whether Enn would abstain or oppose.

Stephanie Fulton,
UN Consul for the Triumvirate of Enn

I am not sure that repealling a well-written resolution over two clauses (and I only agree with your second concern, the one about third party info) is a good plan.
Is it not possible to ammend a resolution? Perhaps you can suggest a proposal that adds a clause to this resolutions which allows third party info to be provided to police, whatever, if necessary.

--Rooty

Is it not possible to ammend a resolution? Perhaps you can suggest a proposal that adds a clause to this resolutions which allows third party info to be provided to police, whatever, if necessary.

--Rooty
How many times do we need to say it? I know you've been told, because I've done it with another nation.

You cannot ammend resolutions. You can leave them as is, repeal and replace, or repeal and not replace. Those are your options.

That's only half true.
While a strict ammendment can't happen, there are plenty of resolutions out there that overlap each other. I should dig up the thread I started a few months ago where I lised all the duplicate resolutions.
We would do something similar.
Draft a resolution regarding the rights of police, government officials, etc... to have access to medical documents under given situations. The legislation would work as an ammendment does, without officially being an ammendment.

Again, my original point still stands. There is no reason to repeal an entire (well written) resolution over one clause that isn't perfect.

--Rooty

Were they submitted under the Hackian Guidelines, or under the previous Endian Protocols? Enodia allowed more overlapping, mainly due to repeals being illegal at the time. Or were those resolutions from earlier, before Enodia set up his protocols?

How many times do we need to say it? I know you've been told, because I've done it with another nation.


OOC: Bloody Darsomir... :p But yeah, you're absolutely right, Enn. MTH, yes, there are resolutions that sorta overlap, but it's a tricky game that.

Both.
I would suggest a resolution that doesn't deal with patient rights at all. A resolution that deals with access to patient information would be better. It could start by noting that it is preferred that the patient give their consent, and then deal with cases such as:
- where the patient is unable to give consent (ie: dead or incapacitated)
- where the patient has been found guilty of a crime, indicating a possible history of psychopathic behaviour
- who should and should and should not have access to a patients medical information.
The overlap will end up being very minimal.

--Rooty

Both.
I would suggest a resolution that doesn't deal with patient rights at all. A resolution that deals with access to patient information would be better. It could start by noting that it is preferred that the patient give their consent, and then deal with cases such as:
- where the patient is unable to give consent (ie: dead or incapacitated)
- where the patient has been found guilty of a crime, indicating a possible history of psychopathic behaviour
- who should and should and should not have access to a patients medical information.
The overlap will end up being very minimal.

--Rooty

That's not what I meant by overlap. What you're talking about would be an amendment.

The trouble with your suggestion, My Travelling Harem, is that the kind of second Resolution that deals with correcting the two major issues with this Resolution would necessarily have to come into conflict with R159. As written, patients records are entirely confidential without patient consent. Any Resolution that tries to rule otherwise would be contradicting R159. And certainly, I'm sure that as we discuss this, there are legal investigations that are suffering because of the Resolution.

The repeal will go forth, because we and several of the above nations, feel that the flaws in this Resolution are too fatal to allow it to remain.

As the repeal is written, ideas for a replacement will be put forth. Tzorsland has offered to help me with it. I'll also request that the authors of R159 aid as well, as the repeal is no intended slight to them. The replacement may, in fact, contain much of the same wording as R159 (Is that legal, by the way, provided that 159 is repealed before the replacement is submitted?).

I want to see a patient's rights act on the books in the UN. I just don't want to see THIS patient's rights act.

Wherever text is surrounded with <these dealies> I am making notes as to possible alternatives to whatever precedes them, or skipping implied things.

<Insert coded material regarding headings and description of the Repeal of R159>

Argument: The United Nations

COMMENDING the efforts of the authors of United Nations Resolution #159, Patient's Rights Act (Heretofore "R159" <Or "PRA">), and;

ADMIRING the goal of R159;

NOTES the following failures of R159: <Here I have concerns about which major issue is more important, and therefore, what order they should be placed in.>

I: R159 forbids the acquisition of private medical records without the consent of the patient in question, regardless of subpoena, warrant, court order, or other legal action, thus creating a hinderance to legal (criminal, civil, etc.) investigations <I want this bit to sound stronger than it does. Help.>.

II: R159 grants patients the right to undergo "any medical procedure," excepting only from that list of medical procedures those that have been forbidden by UN legislation, thereby permitting procedures that are not approved by any major medical association, procedures the patient does not require for their continued health, procedures that may do harm to the patient, and antiquated procedures that are more costly and dangerous than modern techniques.

DEEMS the two aforementioned flaws sufficiently dangerous to justify the Repeal of R159;

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #159: Patient's Rights Act

It has begun. Those two are just my major points. Should minor issues be added, or would that weaken this Proposal? Suggestions on how to make this legislation supportable, approvable, and passable?

Hello Norderia. I hope you don't mind if I comment on your proposed repeal of Patients Rights.
COMMENDING the efforts of the authors of United Nations Resolution #159, Patient's Rights Act (Heretofore "R159" <Or "PRA">), and;
Why thank you!
ADMIRING the goal of R159;
You realise that the primary "goal" of R159 was to legalise abortion, after repealing "Abortion Legality Convention"?
NOTES the following failures of R159: <Here I have concerns about which major issue is more important, and therefore, what order they should be placed in.>
Meh, put them in the order that they appear in R159
I: R159 forbids the acquisition of private medical records without the consent of the patient in question, regardless of subpoena, warrant, court order, or other legal action, thus creating a hinderance to legal (criminal, civil, etc.) investigations <I want this bit to sound stronger than it does. Help.>.
R159 does not specify how the consent is to be obtained. Just require all patients to sign a release form before recieving treatment. Does R159 say that you can't do that? Does your nation have courts which are capable of interpreting UN legislation and it's implementation? This would also address the claim (brought up by someone, can't remember who) that if a patient dies without heirs/legal guardians then the records are sealed in perpetuity. This is a ludicrous claim and this matter would be settled in about 5 minutes in the first courtroom this appeared in. Unless of course your nation has no courts. R159 does not specify how records are to be disposed of after the patient is deceased. It doesn't need to. Use existing national laws to deal with this.
II: R159 grants patients the right to undergo "any medical procedure," excepting only from that list of medical procedures those that have been forbidden by UN legislation, thereby permitting procedures that are not approved by any major medical association, procedures the patient does not require for their continued health, procedures that may do harm to the patient, and antiquated procedures that are more costly and dangerous than modern techniques.
It doesn't say that physicians are required to provide any treatment that is requested. However, here I have to be honest. I have very libertarian beliefs in regards to what people can do with their own bodies. If you decide that you want a frontal lobotomy (even though you don't need one) and you can locate a physician willing to perform the proceedure then more power to you. It's your body. I have the same beliefs in regards to drugs/pharmaceuticals as well. But again, for those nations that believe differently this can easily be gotten around with national laws/court decisions.

DEEMS the two aforementioned flaws sufficiently dangerous to justify the Repeal of R159;
Except they aren't.
It has begun. Those two are just my major points. Should minor issues be added, or would that weaken this Proposal? Suggestions on how to make this legislation supportable, approvable, and passable?
If you are hell-bent on repealing this then knock yourself out. I don't care anymore and this will be my last comment on this matter. As for adding more minor issues to the repeal, I wouldn't. Keep it short and sweet. The only other thing you might mention is the "unusual" wording of Article (II). Frankly, I am astounded that nobody has picked up on that or wondered why I left it that way (actually it started out as a genuine mistake. I corrected it, then thought "waaait a minute", and changed it back to it's current wording). Oh well. Have fun. This resolution really doesn't deserve repealing but I'm frankly sick to death of arguing about it.

Hello Norderia. I hope you don't mind if I comment on your proposed repeal of Patients Rights.
Not at all!

Why thank you!
You're welcome.

You realise that the primary "goal" of R159 was to legalise abortion, after repealing "Abortion Legality Convention"?
The goal is to grant patient's rights. Legalizing abortion is an unworded bi-product. Norderia's goal for this repeal and the following replacement, should the repeal pass, is to grant patients universal rights without stepping on legal toes, or allowing doctors to harm patients, even if the patients want to be harmed.

Meh, put them in the order that they appear in R159
Makes sense.

R159 does not specify how the consent is to be obtained. Just require all patients to sign a release form before recieving treatment. Does R159 say that you can't do that? Does your nation have courts which are capable of interpreting UN legislation and it's implementation? This would also address the claim (brought up by someone, can't remember who) that if a patient dies without heirs/legal guardians then the records are sealed in perpetuity. This is a ludicrous claim and this matter would be settled in about 5 minutes in the first courtroom this appeared in. Unless of course your nation has no courts. R159 does not specify how records are to be disposed of after the patient is deceased. It doesn't need to. Use existing national laws to deal with this.
Records sometimes have to be pulled without the consent of the patient, or if the patient is deceased, the decedent's next of kin. Getting consent is one thing, but the problem with the resolution is that it prevents the legal system from obtaining records without consent. Norderia (and I'm sure several other nations) will certainly not stoop to refusing treatment to those who waive confidentiality by signing the release forms. Forcing consent is worse than leaving the Resolution as is. Insofar as Norderia is concerned, we want to grant people privacy. We are not willing to damage our legal system, however, and so the middle ground must be found.

It doesn't say that physicians are required to provide any treatment that is requested. However, here I have to be honest. I have very libertarian beliefs in regards to what people can do with their own bodies. If you decide that you want a frontal lobotomy (even though you don't need one) and you can locate a physician willing to perform the proceedure then more power to you. It's your body. I have the same beliefs in regards to drugs/pharmaceuticals as well. But again, for those nations that believe differently this can easily be gotten around with national laws/court decisions.
As far as medical procedures go, a standard must be upheld for doctors. Quackery cannot be allowed. Sure, a doctor isn't required to perform certain procedures, but someone will do it. In a professional setting, a doctor should not be allowed to perform an unnecessary procedure that carries with it the risk of death or serious debilitation. S&M in the bedroom is not a professional medical setting, and it is not usually fatal or debilitating (safe words and such) so those more fun kinds of self-inflicted injury aren't in danger in this case. Also, I have to remind you that outside of non-compliance, no court order can get around a UN Resolution. The clause leaves no room for that.

*snip* As for adding more minor issues to the repeal, I wouldn't. Keep it short and sweet.
Agreed.

The only other thing you might mention is the "unusual" wording of Article (II). Frankly, I am astounded that nobody has picked up on that or wondered why I left it that way (actually it started out as a genuine mistake. I corrected it, then thought "waaait a minute", and changed it back to it's current wording).
That's probably something you should have kept a secret. The thought occured to a lot of us, but we had assumed that it was just not a thoroughly thought-out clause. It's a shame that it won't work the way you'd planned, but I don't think that abortion is important enough to leave the door open for brain transplants and organ-rearranging surgeries and trepanation and other such things. ESPECIALLY, since parents are still responsible for their children in most countries, and medical decisions are made by them, this gives those sick parents who for some reason find it necessary to be rid of their kids a legal out.

Records sometimes have to be pulled without the consent of the patient, or if the patient is deceased, the decedent's next of kin. Getting consent is one thing, but the problem with the resolution is that it prevents the legal system from obtaining records without consent. Norderia (and I'm sure several other nations) will certainly not stoop to refusing treatment to those who waive confidentiality by signing the release forms. Forcing consent is worse than leaving the Resolution as is. Insofar as Norderia is concerned, we want to grant people privacy. We are not willing to damage our legal system, however, and so the middle ground must be found.
Like I said, I'm tired of arguing about this, tired of trying to explain it. We disagree on this. I don't see any legal hurdles or hoops to jump through here. Apparently you do see them though and we'll just leave it at that.

As far as medical procedures go, a standard must be upheld for doctors. Quackery cannot be allowed. Sure, a doctor isn't required to perform certain procedures, but someone will do it. In a professional setting, a doctor should not be allowed to perform an unnecessary procedure that carries with it the risk of death or serious debilitation. S&M in the bedroom is not a professional medical setting, and it is not usually fatal or debilitating (safe words and such) so those more fun kinds of self-inflicted injury aren't in danger in this case. Also, I have to remind you that outside of non-compliance, no court order can get around a UN Resolution. The clause leaves no room for that.
What we have here is a philosophical difference of opinion. You would like to see more controls placed over what people can and cannot do with their own bodies. Fair enough. I would appreciate it if, in your repeal, you would present it as an ideological disagreement rather than a "mistake". There are no mistakes in R159. It does exactly what it is intended to do.

You don't have to continue arguing, but as the author of the Resolution I'm trying to repeal, I find that I have to present my case against your points because other people are going to be reading them in this thread. I'm not trying to prolong a debate with you, but I have a repeal to write, so I am certainly going to respond to what you have to say. If you don't want to comment anymore, fine, but I must respond.

shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient
That is in regards to patient records. The word of the UN Resolution is law. And what does the law say here? It says that under no circumstances shall the records of a patient be handed over without the patient's blessing. Any court order or new laws put into place would be in non-compliance with the UN because this Resolution expressly states that the patient's records are not to be made available. If Yelda has no problem with forcing the consent of a patient pre-treatment through a release form, then fine. However we find that it is not necessary to trample on the privacy of people to that extent. There is also the matter of cases where no one is available to sign such a release. It is simply impractical. Conversely, if we allow the wording of the Resolution to prevent authorities from gaining access to medical records, we run the risk of ruining legal investigations and creating a safe place for criminals to hide records, contracts, and any other such things that may be written in with medical records. It's just... Bad. We don't see legal hurdles. We see a legal wall.

As for the other part, I can accept the difference in philosophy. It won't be written in as a mistake, but it is a flaw, for the reasons stated in my previous post.

Thank you for your input, Yelda. I do have one more question, if you'd be so kind as to answer. Would you be opposed to granting us permission to use much of the text from your R159 in a replacement, should that become necessary? Much of it is well-written and sound, I see no point in trying to reword the whole thing.

Thank you for your input, Yelda. I do have one more question, if you'd be so kind as to answer. Would you be opposed to granting us permission to use much of the text from your R159 in a replacement, should that become necessary? Much of it is well-written and sound, I see no point in trying to reword the whole thing.
Heh, if I thought it was "broken" and needed to be "fixed" I'd be repealing/replacing it myself.

Having said that, if you manage to get it repealed then obviously I would be willing to work with you on a replacement. It shouldn't take much effort to address those areas you are concerned with.



I'm not helping with your damned repeal though. :)

Heh, if I thought it was "broken" and needed to be "fixed" I'd be repealing/replacing it myself.

Having said that, if you manage to get it repealed then obviously I would be willing to work with you on a replacement. It shouldn't take much effort to address those areas you are concerned with.



I'm not helping with your damned repeal though. :)

It's a deal then. If I succeed in repealing, we'll make a damn good PRA.

You realise that the primary "goal" of R159 was to legalise abortion, after repealing "Abortion Legality Convention"?

I thank you for making that confession public. It makes the possible hoisting on your own pietard all the more sweet should you attempt to pull it off.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

Hmmm, preborn is technically under the ager of 16, so I shall have the courts assign a legal guardian (read lawyer) to all preborn.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.

Therefore, under this resolution all abortions that are not for the health of the mother can be outlawed.

Now one can argue if being burned with acid or being hacked to pieces is technically a "treatment," but hey this is your crappy resolution and it's your fault that you failed to define the term.

I thank you for making that confession public. It makes the possible hoisting on your own pietard all the more sweet should you attempt to pull it off.
What is this "pietard" you speak of? You're not very bright are you?

Nerdocrombesia is me, by the way. Damned auto-login.

The nation of Airatum will support this repeal, with the hopes of seeing the flaws in the original PRA fixed in a new draft.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

What is this "pietard" you speak of? You're not very bright are you?

I consider myself somewhat bright. (To be precise I radiate light as per a black body object of a temperature appropriate for a warm blooded being such as myself.) I consider my advanced degree to be a sign of brightness. On the other hand I freely admit that I am not the best typist. So :p for me adding an "i" to "petard."

Somehow I have the feeling that I have been poorly typing longer than you have been living. So I therefore claim old fart's perogative. ;)

I mean think of the Freudian slip had I typed "Picard" instead. Let's not trek there. Let's leave it for the next generation to ponder. :mp5:

There are a few more people I would like to hear from in regards to my rough draft of the Repeal. I need feedback so I can get this show on the road. OmfgKenny? Cluich? Gruen? Ausserland? Desert Storm Iraq? ... Er, nevermind the last one.

I'm thinking about putting a few gun smilies in there too. Do you think that'd help? Figure a row or two of a neat pattern.

The rough draft is still that -- a bit rough. Try polishing it up, and I think you may be there. You might also want to go through the debate on the resolution to see if there weren't any points made there that might help your repeal case, either by strengthening the two arguments you've made against the resolution or, perhaps, one you haven't addressed.

The government of St Edmund objected to the 'Patients Rights' resolution on the grounds that have already been mentioned here, and also because of the following perceived problems _

1.) This clause (I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician. would seem to give even the most inexperienced of doctors the power to send patients for the most complex [& risky] types of surgery without the surgical specialists who would actually have to carry out those operations having any say in the matter.

2.) The restriction imposed on the distribution of patients' records potentially makes it much harder for whoever’s paying for any treatments (if that isn’t the actual patients themselves, directly…) to check up on the details of what they are being charged for, or to withhold payment even for any “elective” procedures that they might consider unnecessary (such as, for example, vanity-driven cosmetic surgery).

3.) Doctors & hospitals are now required to treat any “health tourists” who might visit their countries from other UN member-nations, but are then given no automatic right to reclaim the costs of doing so from or through those people’s own nation’s governments…
"Yes, I do realise that they could theoretically refuse to give treatment, but only if they were the patient's "attending physician" as specified in the PRA's clause 'I' as quoted above..."

OmfgKenny?
Keep calling him that, and I doubt he'll be rushing to help.

Gruen?
Looks ok to me. I was ambivalent about this resolution, in the end; I wasn't convinced the problems were as great as being made out, but I did see some of them as being enough to support a repeal.

You have to overturn a sizeable majority. As such, I would hit the major points strongly. You're going to have to appeal to people who supported it originally; I don't know how many of your current arguments will do that, but at the same time, I can't think of any myself.

Keep calling him that, and I doubt he'll be rushing to help.
It's just a pet name. What, didn't catch? -long sigh- Fiiiine. I'll stop. OMGTKK it is.


Looks ok to me. I was ambivalent about this resolution, in the end; I wasn't convinced the problems were as great as being made out, but I did see some of them as being enough to support a repeal.

You have to overturn a sizeable majority. As such, I would hit the major points strongly. You're going to have to appeal to people who supported it originally; I don't know how many of your current arguments will do that, but at the same time, I can't think of any myself.

There's a large group of people who, if they are willing to read the threads, will be fine if they are shown promise of a replacement. There are going to be a lot of people who are just staunchly against anything with the word "Repeal" and "Rights" in the title.

I'm looking through the thread right now, and I see a few more points that I could introduce. This repeal won't be as "short and sweet" as originally thought, especially with my long-winded approach to writing. I'll get to work on a second draft sometime today. For now, I'm putting the link to the other thread in here for my reference, and anyone else's if they so desire.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483508

Our delegation will be happy to try to provide language highlighting the serious problems caused by the provisions on patient records. We would respectfully urge the honorable representative from Norderia to take his time with this. We believe it deserves considerable thoughtful effort. Besides, we question whether it would be tactically wise to have this repeal brought up for consideration close to the current debate on the euthanasia repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Our delegation will be happy to try to provide language highlighting the serious problems caused by the provisions on patient records. We would respectfully urge the honorable representative from Norderia to take his time with this. We believe it deserves considerable thoughtful effort. Besides, we question whether it would be tactically wise to have this repeal brought up for consideration close to the current debate on the euthanasia repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Sounds good to me. I don't plan on actually proposing anything until it's been worked out and... made good.

On that note, I'm going for a bike ride, so I can wake up.

I've got a notion.

Suppose we draft a Patient's Rights Act before submitting the repeal? It will not sit nicely with most people if the concept of patient's rights is struck out of the books. If there is a suitable, supportable, more meritted patient's rights act ready to be submitted by the time the repeal makes it to vote, there is a very clear version to compare and contrast. This would greatly reduce the number of nay-sayers who go on about "We don't want to take away the rights of patients! How would YOU feel if you got hurt and had no rights?" and so on.

Sure, people who don't bother reading the forums will still say such things, but I get the feeling that bringing people's attentions to a replacement while they're voting for the repeal will help convince people that the repeal is most definitly not intended to trample rights.

NO.

For now, just focus on the repeal; convince people upfront what you deem to be the serious flaws inherent in the existing law, and if people are serious about the quality of UN legislation and striking out bad resolutions (in this case I would deem this bill very potentially harmful and cynical), then the repeal can pass under its own weight. If people are wondering if a replacement would be forthcoming, tell them you are open to replacement and would be interested in discussing it after the repeal passes. One step at a time. Tying repeals together with expected drafts only complicates matters, and those demanding to see the replacement before they'll vote for the repeal should not be taken very seriously -- because they aren't taking it seriously. Repeals are about striking out bad law, period, and people should not be paid much mind who are more interested in promoting a certain interest or cause than in correcting this Assembly's mistakes and relieving nations of the burden of enforcing errant UN mandates. Besides that, just as Gruen said, repealers are under no moral obligation to offer a replacement or even support one.

If the repeal passes, take a breather, try to see how much interest exists for a possible future patients' rights law, and if members are amenable to one, start drafting. Speedy replacements in the past have produced some very bad outcomes (FFRA, Worldwide Media Act, etc.).

Good luck.

Sounds good to me.

NO.

For now, just focus on the repeal; convince people upfront what you deem to be the serious flaws inherent in the existing law, and if people are serious about the quality of UN legislation and striking out bad resolutions (in this case I would deem this bill very potentially harmful and cynical), then the repeal can pass under its own weight. If people are wondering if a replacement would be forthcoming, tell them you are open to replacement and would be interested in discussing it after the repeal passes. One step at a time. Tying repeals together with expected drafts only complicates matters, and those demanding to see the replacement before they'll vote for the repeal should not be taken very seriously -- because they aren't taking it seriously. Repeals are about sriking out bad law, period, and people should not paid much mind who are more interested in promoting a certain interest or cause than in correcting this Assembly's mistakes and relieving nations of the burden of enforcing errant UN mandates. Besides that, just as Gruen said, repealers are under no moral obligation to offer a replacement or even support one.

If the repeal passes, take a breather, try to see how much interest exists for a possible future patients' rights law, and if members are amenable to one, start drafting. Speedy replacements in the past have produced some very bad outcomes (FFRA, Worldwide Media Act, etc.).

Good luck.


I agree about not promising a replacement, but think that having one drafted just in case -- to try & pre-empt any worse one that might otherwise get through -- would probably be wise...

I agree about not promising a replacement, but think that having one drafted just in case -- to try & pre-empt any worse one that might otherwise get through -- would probably be wise...

It's a good idea, I think. I'm going to take my hands off of it, however, so that I can concentrate on the repeal. I'd be glad to offer feedback and such, as with anything else, but I think Kenny is on to something there with the me doing one thing at a time.

In my second draft, I'm going to clean up the wording already written, and add a few points.

On top of the problem with law enforcement in Clause VII of R159, there is a hinderance to the operation of a hospital or clinic, in that other staff members are not privy to necessary information without patient consent.

Also tying in with Clause VII is the problem brought up by St. Edmund regarding Clause I. There are many cases where (watch House) neither the patient or attending physician have the necessary knowledge to make all medical decisions. Consulting physicians aren't considered to be attending physicians, so both clauses put a nasty wrench in the workings (Heh, almost literally, Bodies in the Gears of the Apparatus).

The second draft will include the changes to the grievances with Clause VII and the new grievance with Clause I. I'll probably write it up today unless I miraculously make plans to go out with people.

<Insert coded material regarding headings and description of the Repeal of R159>

Argument: The United Nations:

COMMENDING the efforts of the authors of United Nations Resolution #159, Patient's Rights Act (Heretofore "R159"), and;

ADMIRING the goal of granting rights to patients;

NOTES the following failures of R159:

(I) R159 mandates that all medical decisions be made by the patient and the patient's attending physician, despite the possible lack of qualifications possessed by the patient and the patient's attending physician, forbidding a proper specialist from determining and implementing the proper course of action.

(II) R159 grants patients the right to undergo "any medical procedure," excepting from that list of medical procedures only those that have been forbidden by UN legislation, thereby permitting procedures that are not approved by any major medical association, procedures the patient does not require for their continued or improved health, procedures that may do undue harm to the patient, and antiquated procedures that are more costly and dangerous than modern equivalents.

(III) R159 forbids, without the consent of the patient in question, any information from consultations and records to be shared with the necessary medical professionals needed to allow for the proper performance and function of a medical center, including administration and nursing staff.

(IV) R159 forbids, without the consent of the patient in question, the acquisition of private medical records, regardless of subpoena, warrant, court order, or other legal action, preventing the progress of legal (criminal, civil, etc.) investigations.

DEEMS the aforementioned flaws sufficiently dangerous to justify the Repeal of R159;

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #159: Patient's Rights Act

There is draft number two. I have introduced two more points and changed the wording in the existing points with the aim of making them more concise and stronger. I am certainly open to rewording them again, of course, and I welcome critique about the wording.

Comments? Suggestions?

Okay, The wording in the points needs to be changed. It doesn't strike me as strong or convincing enough. Thinking about my old logic class made me start with a standard form conditional syllogism.

If R159 has fatal flaws, then it should be repealed.
R159 has fatal flaws
Therefore it should be repealed.

Then I elaborated on the minor premise with the four points. I'm not entirely sure that I formatted those points in the best way. I think aside from minor problems (if any) with the premises and conclusion in capitals, the only things that need to be edited to perfection are the numbered points.

Hack, can you do me a favor and change the title of this thread to "Draft: Repeal Patient's Rights Act" Or something to that effect?

You got it.

Thanks a lot, 'preciate it.

Interesting thread. Our views are that the original resolution is actually flawed.
One of the worst flaws is the lack of definition of medical treatment as, say, something included in standard medical protocols as a therapy, combined with the authority of a tutor for underage people. This would label as a "patient right", e.g., children mutilation.

As the original resolution is written, moreover, if a country features public health services then our interpretation is that a physician may be compelled to apply what he believes to be a mutilation or similar. Not nice.

We will support the repeal. At the same time, we do believe that a replacement is necessary, since lack of such a resolution would be worse than the current one.

Interesting thread. Our views are that the original resolution is actually flawed.
One of the worst flaws is the lack of definition of medical treatment as, say, something included in standard medical protocols as a therapy, combined with the authority of a tutor for underage people. This would label as a "patient right", e.g., children mutilation.

As the original resolution is written, moreover, if a country features public health services then our interpretation is that a physician may be compelled to apply what he believes to be a mutilation or similar. Not nice.

I don't follow. Would you mind clarifying and elaborating?

We will support the repeal. At the same time, we do believe that a replacement is necessary, since lack of such a resolution would be worse than the current one.

Thank you for the support.

Interesting thread. Our views are that the original resolution is actually flawed.
One of the worst flaws is the lack of definition of medical treatment as, say, something included in standard medical protocols as a therapy, combined with the authority of a tutor for underage people. This would label as a "patient right", e.g., children mutilation.

As the original resolution is written, moreover, if a country features public health services then our interpretation is that a physician may be compelled to apply what he believes to be a mutilation or similar. Not nice.
Please don't turn this into a circumscion topic.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

One of the worst flaws is the lack of definition of medical treatment as, say, something included in standard medical protocols as a therapy, combined with the authority of a tutor for underage people. This would label as a "patient right", e.g., children mutilation.

As the original resolution is written, moreover, if a country features public health services then our interpretation is that a physician may be compelled to apply what he believes to be a mutilation or similar.

I don't follow. Would you mind clarifying and elaborating?


Of course not. The first remark follows from "(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure" and "(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16"

This implies, in our opinion, that a guardian has the right to decide, say, that a 13-year old boy has the "right" to have his left leg severated, irrespective of the boy's will or health conditions. Or, to address a more realistic issue, that an epyleptic girl has the "right" to undergo lobotomy. This is clearly unacceptable.

Now, for the second remark, if a country features public health services, this means that any physician working in a public hospital is bound to satisfy the rightful therapy needs of a patient. Which, in this case, may well be, say, the administration of psychotropic drugs to a child, even if the treatment will patently damage the health of the child. If the physician refuses, he is likely to be punished for disrupting a public health service, since he is not a free operator.

Finally, due to "(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds", such a "right" could be invoked even by non-residents. Therefore, if I cannot obtain that my noisy kid be tranquillizers-bombed in my home country, I travel to another that observes the UN resolution, and have him sedated at my will.

Sorry if my writing may be unclear: I am not a native English speaker, and I perhaps happen to fail to express my thinkings with the proper words.

I see your points, and if the points in my repeal won't be hurt by adding it, I may add the bit about parental negligence. I'll set that problem on the back burner for now.

(Your english isn't that bad, it's a hard language, so we'll be generous with your wording.)

Ok. I'll support the repeal anyway.

Ok. I'll support the repeal anyway.

Your support and input is greatly appreciated.

Opposition to the repeal (though relatively quiet in this thread) does not see the problem with the patients' records. The suggestion is put forth that patients must sign a release form. Either to sign the form in order to receive treatment, or at the time the records are requested.

The former suggestion entirely undermines the privacy advocation. By forcing patients to sign the release of their records before they are allowed treatment, their privacy is nullified.

The latter suggestion is put forth without much foresight. Imagine, if you will, a patient with someone's skull fragment from the blowback from a close-range gun shot lodged in their body. The fragment is proof of the patient's involvement with the shooting of the victim. The object removed from the patient, however, is confidential because of the patient's records being secret without consent. This is how it would go.

Investigator: How did you get that wound?
Patient: Dropped a glass in the sink, a shard got lodged in there.
Investigator: May I see your records to prove this statement?
Patient: No.

That about sums it up. Nothing can be done unless a nation is to eschew privacy of medical records in all cases by demanding the release of records before treatment. The Resolution demands one of two extremes: No privacy, or infinite privacy. There must be a reconciliation of the two.

I'd appreciate some more feedback in here. Plenty of people spoke up about supporting (or even being against) the repeal, but I am not getting much help at this point.

The people of Airatum support a repeal of the Paitents Rights Act, and hope to see a replacement of it that closely mirrors it, with the changes needed. We also find this legislation problematic due to the original two objections.

We wish to be able to overide a patients right to privacy in the course of a criminal investigation after probable cause has been shown and a warrant obtained according to our laws.

We wish to be able to outlaw medical procedures that are wasteful, unnecessary, and dangerous.

We urge the UN to support this resolution.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Opposition to the repeal (though relatively quiet in this thread) does not see the problem with the patients' records. The suggestion is put forth that patients must sign a release form. Either to sign the form in order to receive treatment, or at the time the records are requested.
It would be no different than when you go to the doctor in RL and are required to sign a Privacy Act statement before recieving treatment. It should be fairly easy to address this in the replacement, I just honestly didn't see the point in including it in PRA. Right now it is left up to the various nations to decide whether to do that or not.

The replacement could include an article stating:
Healthcare providers may require patients to sign release forms authorising the release of records to authorised agencies or individuals before offering treatment.
Or somesuch. Then we could define what constitutes an "authorised agency or individual". Or we could have an article dealing specifically with court orders/subpoenas etc.
The replacement isn't going to require a great deal of work.

We wish to be able to outlaw medical procedures that are wasteful, unnecessary, and dangerous.
But you already can by defining what does/does not qualify as a "medical procedure" in your nation. Article (II) is too vague, it needs to be much more specific. Right now, you can loophole your way around it by saying "XXXXXX is not defined as a medical procedure in Airatum". That, in my opinion, is the major flaw in PRA. Article (II) must be strengthened considerably in order to take away that loophole.

Norderia! Full speed ahead on the repeal!

It would be no different than when you go to the doctor in RL and are required to sign a Privacy Act statement before recieving treatment. It should be fairly easy to address this in the replacement, I just honestly didn't see the point in including it in PRA. Right now it is left up to the various nations to decide whether to do that or not.

The replacement could include an article stating:

Or somesuch. Then we could define what constitutes an "authorised agency or individual". Or we could have an article dealing specifically with court orders/subpoenas etc.
The replacement isn't going to require a great deal of work.

Putting proper language about confidentiality of records in a replacement should be relatively easy and will avoid having to make patients sign one more piece of legal mumbo-jumbo before they can receive care, as well as eliminate the problem of post-mortem control of records.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Putting proper language about confidentiality of records in a replacement should be relatively easy and will avoid having to make patients sign one more piece of legal mumbo-jumbo before they can receive care, as well as eliminate the problem of post-mortem control of records.
That would probably be the best way to approach it, from a character count perspective if nothing else. I'm afraid if we try to address release forms and define who the forms authorise the records to be released to it will run into several hundred characters. I don't think we have that many characters to play with.

This thread should be about Norderias repeal though, not the replacement.[/hijack]

But you already can by defining what does/does not qualify as a "medical procedure" in your nation. Article (II) is too vague, it needs to be much more specific. Right now, you can loophole your way around it by saying "XXXXXX is not defined as a medical procedure in Airatum". That, in my opinion, is the major flaw in PRA. Article (II) must be strengthened considerably in order to take away that loophole.

Norderia! Full speed ahead on the repeal!

We thank the representative of Yelda for their response.

Indeed, we have had to resort to such redefining. We find such things distasteful and a poor way to govern, however, and would prefer legislation that acknowledges that not all 'medical procedures' as the term would be used with a practical definition (as opposed to a legal definition), are ethical or expedient.

If some members will seek to make Article II more specific, it may be more difficult to pass a replacement act than many are portraying, since it will involve debate over which procedures are actually a legitimate right.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Ahhh, delicious responses. Thank all of you.

I agree, the PRA would not take a long time to redraft with the necessary corrections, and I'll be glad if it gets as far. I'll offer my input as to how the redrafting should go when it comes time for that. For now, I'm going to concentrate on the Repeal.

Any major problems with it right now?

If not, any minor problems with it right now?

My one suggestion would be to start a separate thread if you want to discuss the replacement, or have Yelda start it or something. Keep this repeal about the repeal itself.

Awww, what'd it say, Gruen? My curiosity is piqued!

And yes. Separate thread for the Re-draft. Someone else wanna start it, or should I shoulder the burden (O terrible burden)?

Awww, what'd it say, Gruen? My curiosity is piqued!

And yes. Separate thread for the Re-draft. Someone else wanna start it, or should I shoulder the burden (O terrible burden)?
(It said "Seconded". That was it.)

You should start the second thread if you want to write the replacement. If you don't - you want a replacement, but would rather concentrate on the repeal - leave it to someone else.

(It said "Seconded". That was it.)

You should start the second thread if you want to write the replacement. If you don't - you want a replacement, but would rather concentrate on the repeal - leave it to someone else.

Yeah... That was pretty pointless... I'm disappointed. The entertainment value of it was not as delicious as I'd hoped.

I'm going to leave the replacement thread to someone else, if it doesn't show up within a few days, I'll start it.

While y'all are here, any comments about the second draft?

Good to go, I'd say. Try a test submission with no TGing, and see how many approvals it picks up. 40+ (discounting the usual fewsual), and I'd rate its chances - fewer than that, and it probably needs work.

I'll wait on an opinion or two more before giving it a test submission, just to have other perspectives on it.

I'm going to leave the replacement thread to someone else, if it doesn't show up within a few days, I'll start it.
I'll start it before you submit the repeal "for real" (meaning with TG support).

I'll start it before you submit the repeal "for real" (meaning with TG support).I wouldn't. This is about the repeal, not the replacement.

Does it look good enough to submit, or is there something that needs changing?

I wouldn't. This is about the repeal, not the replacement.
Que? I meant I would start another thread, not that I would start drafting it in this one.

Does it look good enough to submit, or is there something that needs changing?
I don't think it would hurt to do a test submission.

Okeedokee. Test submission, ahoy. Make sure y'all approve it, so's people who are influenced by either names and/or numbers will approve it as well. It'd be nice if approvals were made by merit alone, but we know that's not the case. I wanna do well even in this test.

Somehow I have the feeling that I have been poorly typing longer than you have been living. So I therefore claim old fart's perogative. ;)
When did you start typing? Assuming it was in high school that would make you, what, about 60 years old? ;)

(this is just a BUMP, no need to respond)

I agree that the resolution in question should be repealed. I support this resolution.

I agree that the resolution in question should be repealed.
Indeed, and death to the godless commies that wrote it!

That would be a tad bit harsh. I think just repealing the Patient's Rights Act would be in order.

Indeed, and death to the godless commies that wrote it!

You know, for a second I thought you quoted the "I support this resolution" bit. I was like, "Screw you!" But then I read it. And. Yeah.

Go approve my proposal! I want a good test run, peoplez!

So I missed it fail. Last time I checked it (Thursday night or so) it had about 21 approvals. Did anyone catch a later count?

F-Carthage III's repeal of banning whatsitscrap did better than me... But I suspect a TG campaign there.

Alright. Where to from here?

Well, if you're confident with your Repeal, resubmit it. Some regulars could probably give you information on preferable times and days to submit; I don't follow it that closely. You'll also want to coordinate a telegram campaign. It seems nearly impossible to manage without one. Not totally impossible, but close.

Well, if you're confident with your Repeal, resubmit it. Some regulars could probably give you information on preferable times and days to submit; I don't follow it that closely. You'll also want to coordinate a telegram campaign. It seems nearly impossible to manage without one. Not totally impossible, but close.

Yeah, we didn't figure it would pass without a TG campaign. This was to test the waters, so to speak. I was shootin for around 40 approvals, cold, but hopefully 110 more will come from TGs.

You know what'd be nice? A link on the UN page that brings up a list of UN delegates. That'd be cool.

Yeah, we didn't figure it would pass without a TG campaign. This was to test the waters, so to speak. I was shootin for around 40 approvals, cold, but hopefully 110 more will come from TGs.
I think it may have gotten 24 or 25. Which isn't bad. Remember that this is a repeal. It's not going to collect as many "drive-by approvals" as a proposed resolution would.

You know what'd be nice? A link on the UN page that brings up a list of UN delegates. That'd be cool.
Well, there is a link that brings up all of the delegate votes on the resolution currently at vote. That's what I usually use in a TG campaign, especially if I'm working alone. By the last day of the vote, you have a pretty good list of all of the delegates that are active, that actually vote and take part in the UN. Generally, I submit on the second day of the vote and then just TG every delegate that votes, both "for" and "against".

You know what'd be nice? A link on the UN page that brings up a list of UN delegates. That'd be cool.You mean, something like this (http://www.nationstates.net/93062/page=list_regions)? (Link appears on the UN page, too. :p)

... Or were being sarcastic?

You mean, something like this (http://www.nationstates.net/93062/page=list_regions)? (Link appears on the UN page, too. :p)

... Or were being sarcastic?

Well...

You know...

No...

What, ho, I say! I am resubmitting this proposal now, and am beginning a TG campaign. I am going to start with the numbered regions on the page Kenny showed me, and work my way up.

Will someone be pleased to start at the end, and work their way down?

Then someone starting at, say, M and working their way down, and N working their way up? Each and every UN delegate doesn't have to be TGed for this to work, I'm sure, but I wanna hit as many as I can. I appreciate all the help anyone can offer.

Now, here's a question. Why can't I get the specific link to my proposal? I'd really love to start sending these TGs, but there don't seem to be no link to mah proposal.

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=patients%20rights

Should work. Good luck.

www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=patients%20rights

Should work. Good luck.

I love you Kenny.

This is what I'll be sending.

Esteemed Delegate;

Norderia has submitted a proposal to the UN entitled Repeal "Patients Rights Act." The author of Patients Rights Act has already written a replacement that solves the problems listed in the Proposed Repeal.

You may view the Proposal here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=patients%20rights

Your support and approval would be greatly appreciated.

Shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit I gotta go back, cuz I've been sending a broken link..... GRAR.

You've just receieved your second approval.

128 to go. ;)

Hooray! I'm sexy.

I got through about 30 pages of delegates before I decided to be sure the link worked. It didn't, cuz I copied and pasted straight from the forum, which shortens URLs. I went back through the pages sending the correct link. I'm done with it for now, I'll go back to it later on and continue tomorrow.

90 approvals needed as of now.


grumble grumble...