NationStates Jolt Archive

Patient's Rights Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: New Leicestershire

Description: The World Assembly, believing that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their medical 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 undue government interference in the doctor/patient relationship; and further asserting that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records relating to their care;

Hereby declares that:

(I) Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures. A physician or qualified caregiver may provide treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent.

(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.

(III) Patients have the right to be involved in decisions concerning their care and to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, risks and necessity of alternative procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved, provided that such information does not violate the medical confidentiality of other persons.

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

(V) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the persons and institutions directly and personally involved in their care as it relates to their care.

(VI) Personal medical records and the contents of such records, including consultations between patients and physicians, shall be held in the strictest confidence and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient, with the following exceptions:
(i) Records shall be released in response to a warrant, subpoena, or similar legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction.
(ii) Physicians may make the patient's personal medical records and the contents of such records available to their colleagues and any healthcare professionals involved in the patient's treatment for the purpose of providing medical care to the patient and for other reasons such as morbidity study. Records entirely stripped of all personal details may be published.

(VII) The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action.

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

(IX) Patients shall be fully informed of their rights in a manner they can understand.

Great work. This should jack up my Civil rights rating.

While the theory is laudable, the proposed legislation appears to present a few problems. First and foremost of these is the issue of minor children under paragrah II of the the resolution. Minor children should not be, unconditionally, granted the right to non-life saving medical procedures in the absence of consent from a parent or guardian.

The other issue, pertaining to this proposed legislation, is that it would appear to put an enormous burden on the social safety netfor those nations with more liberal social policies (universal health care), as the resolution fails to identify from where the available funds shall be derived. Thus it is entirely possible that the people of Lockelandia could end up subsidizing sex change operations (or some other optional procedure) for people visiting our fair nation with the sole and express purpose of exploiting our system.

Finally, Lockelandia opposes this resolution because it would create an unfunded mandate and a huge burden upon a medical system which might be deemed somewhat strained in its ability to meet current demand.

Thus, while Lockelandia agrees (in principle) with many of the concepts enumerated in this resolution- we must oppose it.

I agree with all the context in this legislation and the Commenwealth of james Bluntus will vote FOR this act.

Is this proposing the formation of an NHS within each member state?

From my reading, only life saving treatment needs to be provided free at point of use. Elective, lifestyle enhancing (horrible phrase, but the only one I can think of), need not be

The other issue, pertaining to this proposed legislation, is that it would appear to put an enormous burden on the social safety netfor those nations with more liberal social policies (universal health care), as the resolution fails to identify from where the available funds shall be derived. Thus it is entirely possible that the people of Lockelandia could end up subsidizing sex change operations (or some other optional procedure) for people visiting our fair nation with the sole and express purpose of exploiting our system.

Finally, Lockelandia opposes this resolution because it would create an unfunded mandate and a huge burden upon a medical system which might be deemed somewhat strained in its ability to meet current demand.

No.
These points are covered by the phrase "and for which confirmed funding is available", that's basically why I campaigned for its inclusion.
If whoever funds a health service can't (or doesn't want to) subsidize -- for example -- sex-change operations then the confirmed funding wouldn't be available, and the operations could legally be refused... and any other non-emergency procedures that couldn't be covered by the assigned budget would also be deniable.

The citizens of Harmonious Treefolk and their leaders are the best qualified to determine what type of health benefits they will receive and what medical services they will pay for. The Treefolk are more than willing to sacrifice of themselves when the health of the nation itself is at stake. All that is to say that the World Assembly will be overstepping its bounds to demand we sink our time and currency into an overly-costly health care bill.

We would like to think that we are not the only nation concerned for the rights of our own people to determine where they will spend their own money.

First and foremost of these is the issue of minor children under paragrah II of the the resolution. Minor children should not be, unconditionally, granted the right to non-life saving medical procedures in the absence of consent from a parent or guardian.
Article II states: (II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.

This will only be a problem for you if it is legal for minor children to receive non-emergency medical procedures without parental consent in your nation.


The other issue, pertaining to this proposed legislation, is that it would appear to put an enormous burden on the social safety netfor those nations with more liberal social policies (universal health care), as the resolution fails to identify from where the available funds shall be derived. Thus it is entirely possible that the people of Lockelandia could end up subsidizing sex change operations (or some other optional procedure) for people visiting our fair nation with the sole and express purpose of exploiting our system.
Only if confirmed funding is available to provide sex changes to foreigners.

Is this proposing the formation of an NHS within each member state?
No, it isn't.

All that is to say that the World Assembly will be overstepping its bounds to demand we sink our time and currency into an overly-costly health care bill.
The World Assembly cannot overstep its bounds. Further, explain how it is overly costly.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I appreciate the response from Ambassador Watts and thank him for taking the time to answer my question.

A second question, and one I suspect I already know the answer for - how is it anticipated that funding is obtained for this proposal? I understand if the ambassadors government crafted this proposal with the deliberate intent of avoiding this thorny issue and thus passed the micro-management over to member states to organise and implement.

At it's most fundamental I can see it anticipated that public funding would almost inevitably have to be used for the basic emergency healthcare outlined in article I. Article II adds the condition of if the funding is available, which implies that an organisation would (rightly) have to prioritise emergency healthcare and any remaining funding would be available to article II only after the requirements upon resources made by article I were satisfied.

I am very pleased with this resolution and have already cast my vote <b>for</b> it.

[OOC: These particular parts,
(III) Patients have the right to be involved in decisions concerning their care and to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, risks and necessity of alternative procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved, provided that such information does not violate the medical confidentiality of other persons.

(V) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the persons and institutions directly and personally involved in their care as it relates to their care.

reminded me of Cancer Ward; apparently, in Soviet Russia, doctors thought that it was their job to lie to their patients and basically keep them in the dark about their treatments.]

A second question, and one I suspect I already know the answer for - how is it anticipated that funding is obtained for this proposal? I understand if the ambassadors government crafted this proposal with the deliberate intent of avoiding this thorny issue and thus passed the micro-management over to member states to organise and implement.
The only changes that could require additional funding would be those outlined in Article I concerning emergency services. Of course, if you have NHS already then there probably won't be any changes there either. Article II could require additional funding if you let it. Articles III through IX shouldn't require any additional funding.

If I had intended to set up a NHS in every WA nation I could have, but it would have been a Social Justice Resolution, not Human Rights. I also could have set up a committee to oversee the implementation of the Resolution, but we felt that member states are mature and reasonable enough to be trusted to implement it on their own.


At it's most fundamental I can see it anticipated that public funding would almost inevitably have to be used for the basic emergency healthcare outlined in article I. Article II adds the condition of if the funding is available, which implies that an organisation would (rightly) have to prioritise emergency healthcare and any remaining funding would be available to article II only after the requirements upon resources made by article I were satisfied.

There should be no effect in nations with some form of NHS.

Even in market-based healthcare systems I doubt the staffs of emergency rooms and trauma centres are turning away people who lack the ability to pay. As far as I'm aware the procedure in emergency care is to treat first, look for the insurance card later.

If they are denying emergency care based on the ability to pay, then they won't be after this passes. So yes, in nations where emergency services are currently denied due to inability to pay they will have to find some way to start funding those services.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Is this proposing the formation of an NHS within each member state?
I'd like to come back to this for a moment, if I may. It's worth noting that having a "right" to something doesn't guarantee that it will be presented to you free of charge and with no requirements or conditions. If I had wanted to set up a NHS I could have, but the language of the Resolution would have been much different.

I say this as a forewarning to any delegations that come in here screaming that this forces the establishment of a NHS. I have laid-in an extra inventory of pies and pastries for such delegations.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Great work. This should jack up my Civil rights rating.
I rarely (if ever) pay any attention to what these do, stat-wise. Obviously they have to be submitted in the proper category and at the proper strength, but I pay much more attention now to the RP aspects than the gameplay aspects.

I say this as a forewarning to any delegations that come in here screaming that this forces the establishment of a NHS. I have laid-in an extra inventory of pies and pastries for such delegations.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

"Hr'rrm..."

(Borrin visibly has to resist the temptation to start screaming that this forces the establishment of a NHS... Free pies and pastries? ;))

Mr. Watts,
You know, old boy, I'm kinda torn over this legislation. Its well written and nat-sov friendly, so I have no real complaints about the proposal. However I really despise Human Rights proposals. If this looks like it shall pass ovwewhelmingly, I shall probally vote against it, but without any malice. Its nothing personal, but I do have a reputation here in the Festering Snakepit. Some delegates might start to believe that the good but unwholesome Senator, is becoming softer than a sneaker-full of grits.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
(Good and Unwholesome but Definately NOT softer than a sneakerfull of grits)

The Council of Praetura have reviewed the resolution and have released the following statment:

The Council of Praetura has approved the resolution, however, is concerned that there is no article regarding a terminally ill patient and what rights the immediate family has to their loved ones well being. Under what grounds are they allowed to ask the establishment to "turn off the machine"?

With best wishes, we remain

Very truly yours,

The Council of Praetura

Good resolution New Leicestershire. Voted for of course.

Voted for this... my only concern is, what defines an emergency or nonemergency situation?

Under what grounds are they allowed to ask the establishment to "turn off the machine"?
That would depend upon what the laws regarding such situations are in your nation. If the patient is unable to make such a decision himself, then the provisions in Article VIII would be in effect.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Voted for this... my only concern is, what defines an emergency or nonemergency situation?
I wouldn't think they would need to be defined, but since we haven't defined them they are whatever you say they are.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

:cool: I would think that denying patients rights tie into a very strict concern of dictatorship or explotation for that matter. But it's important that rights are given to ALLL!

This act would give the doctor's the power to perform whichever medical procedure (helpful or not) that they want. This shouldn't pass!

This act would give the doctor's the power to perform whichever medical procedure (helpful or not) that they want.
And how would it do that?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

No.
These points are covered by the phrase "and for which confirmed funding is available", that's basically why I campaigned for its inclusion.
If whoever funds a health service can't (or doesn't want to) subsidize -- for example -- sex-change operations then the confirmed funding wouldn't be available, and the operations could legally be refused... and any other non-emergency procedures that couldn't be covered by the assigned budget would also be deniable.

With respect to the honorable delegate from Bears Armed, I disagree.

The mere presence of a national health program (universal health care) within a nation presupposes that some form of subsidy is available to fund it. The most common means of funding these types of program is to use taxes and thus while funds (specific to the sex change) might not have been allocated, funds for health care HAVE been so allocated and could be argued to be legally confirmed. Thus it would become a matter for the courts to decide, and that simply wouldn't do. The people of Lockelandia have been quite explicit about their wishes in this matter and they have no desire to see their tax dollars squandered on the inevitable bureaucracy, inefficiency, and litigation arising out of a decree issued by some foreign Kommisar of Health.

With respect to the honorable delegate from Bears Armed, I disagree.

The mere presence of a national health program (universal health care) within a nation presupposes that some form of subsidy is available to fund it. The most common means of funding these types of program is to use taxes and thus while funds (specific to the sex change) might not have been allocated, funds for health care HAVE been so allocated and could be argued to be legally confirmed. Thus it would become a matter for the courts to decide, and that simply wouldn't do. The people of Lockelandia have been quite explicit about their wishes in this matter and they have no desire to see their tax dollars squandered on the inevitable bureaucracy, inefficiency, and litigation arising out of a decree issued by some foreign Kommisar of Health.

You're wrong. Period.

But if you insist on believing that this forces you to provide sex-change operations to foreigners or anyone else then who am I to argue with you.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Our nation thinks this act sucks major donkey balls.

Article II states: (II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.

This will only be a problem for you if it is legal for minor children to receive non-emergency medical procedures without parental consent in your nation.



Only if confirmed funding is available to provide sex changes to foreigners.


No, it isn't.


The World Assembly cannot overstep its bounds. Further, explain how it is overly costly.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I must respectfully rise to disagree with the learned ambassador for New Leicestershire. The question of legality is much broader than the narrow interpretation placed upon it by your response, sir. Legality may also include legality of purpose, which speaks to the issue of whether the operation is legal per-se. Let us, for example, postulate that a sovereign nation, bordering Lockelandia, not only allows- but encourages a surgical practice to be performed on teenage girls which is considered, by some religious sects to control female promiscuity. The parents of the child (or the child herself if the neighboring state allows surgery on minor children) cross the border in an attempt to circumvent Lockelandian law which defines this practice as an abomination. Thus we have the potential for the surgery, which is legal per-se in one state, creating a breach of the law in another state.

Our nation thinks this act sucks major donkey balls.

I didn't even know it had a mouth.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Let us, for example, postulate that a sovereign nation, bordering Lockelandia, not only allows- but encourages a surgical practice to be performed on teenage girls which is considered, by some religious sects to control female promiscuity. The parents of the child (or the child herself if the neighboring state allows surgery on minor children) cross the border in an attempt to circumvent Lockelandian law which defines this practice as an abomination. Thus we have the potential for the surgery, which is legal per-se in one state, creating a breach of the law in another state.
And how, exactly, does a person leaving one jurisdiction where a procedure is illegal, and travelling to another jurisdiction where it is legal fall within the purview of this legislation?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Our nation thinks this act sucks major donkey balls.

I didn't even know it had a mouth.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA
Apparently donkey balls are a type of confection (http://www.frankiescandybar.com/chocolate/pr70/Donkey-Balls.aspx) consisting of macadamia nuts and chocolate. I'm not sure how this act can suck them though. Like you I was unaware it had a mouth.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Hi
"(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available."

I have one question where it says confirmed funding is available. does that mean that the Government has to foot the bill? What if there are poor countries in the WA that can't pay for it. I have voted for the resolusion but that is my one concern. Thank You.

Hi
"(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available."

I have one question where it says confirmed funding is available. does that mean that the Government has to foot the bill? What if there are poor countries in the WA that can't pay for it. I have voted for the resolusion but that is my one concern. Thank You.
It means confirmed funding is available.

In a nation with some sort of national health system, yes, the government would pay for it and it would have to be a procedure which is covered under that nation's national health programme.

In nations with market-based healthcare systems, it would be a matter of insurance or private funding.

In other words, just because you have a "right" to something doesn't mean you get it for free. Someone has to pay for it, either national health, private insurance, or you personally.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Patient's Rights Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: New Leicestershire

Description: The World Assembly, believing that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their medical 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 undue government interference in the doctor/patient relationship; and further asserting that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records relating to their care;

Hereby declares that:

(I) Patients have the right to emergency medical treatment under circumstances requiring lifesaving procedures. A physician or qualified caregiver may provide treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain their consent.

(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.

(III) Patients have the right to be involved in decisions concerning their care and to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, risks and necessity of alternative procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved, provided that such information does not violate the medical confidentiality of other persons.

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

(V) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the persons and institutions directly and personally involved in their care as it relates to their care.

(VI) Personal medical records and the contents of such records, including consultations between patients and physicians, shall be held in the strictest confidence and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient, with the following exceptions:
(i) Records shall be released in response to a warrant, subpoena, or similar legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction.
(ii) Physicians may make the patient's personal medical records and the contents of such records available to their colleagues and any healthcare professionals involved in the patient's treatment for the purpose of providing medical care to the patient and for other reasons such as morbidity study. Records entirely stripped of all personal details may be published.

(VII) The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action.

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

(IX) Patients shall be fully informed of their rights in a manner they can understand.

The nations of the Region of Gay believe that this resolution is not feasible, and in this WA member's frank opinion, unconstitutional. I submit to you that this resolution contradicts itself through the use of section I, which states that medical procedures can be done without the patient's consent. This part of the resolution clearly violates sections III, which requires patients to be involved in the decision making process, and IX of the same bill, which demands that patients be fully informed of their rights in a manner they can understand.
Section II of the bill concerns us greatly in terms of the legal precident it sets, allowing patients from other countries to litigate preferential treatment in lieu of citizens of a WA nation. This preferential treatment also runs contrary to the wishes of section VII of this selfsame resolution.
Finally, in regards to section VI, part ii; this one provision completely eradicates doctor-patient confidentiality, as having the records of an individual be sent through entire medical databases, while possibly helpful to medical researchers, is also a confirmed violation of a person's privacy rights.

It is for these reasons that I implore the WA to strike down this resolution.

The nations of the Region of Gay believe that this resolution is not feasible, and in this WA member's frank opinion, unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional? Whose constitution does it violate?

I submit to you that this resolution contradicts itself through the use of section I, which states that medical procedures can be done without the patient's consent. This part of the resolution clearly violates sections III, which requires patients to be involved in the decision making process, and IX of the same bill, which demands that patients be fully informed of their rights in a manner they can understand.
Article I only covers emergency services.
Section II of the bill concerns us greatly in terms of the legal precident it sets, allowing patients from other countries to litigate preferential treatment in lieu of citizens of a WA nation. This preferential treatment also runs contrary to the wishes of section VII of this selfsame resolution.
Nonsense. Explain to me how you think this allows "patients from other countries to litigate preferential treatment in lieu of citizens of a WA nation."

Finally, in regards to section VI, part ii; this one provision completely eradicates doctor-patient confidentiality, as having the records of an individual be sent through entire medical databases, while possibly helpful to medical researchers, is also a confirmed violation of a person's privacy rights.
They can make the records available to their colleagues and others involved in the patient's care. How is that unreasonable? Morbidity studies? That's pretty much standard procedure in the medical profession.

A very entertaining and dramatic diatribe, but completely without merit. Next!

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Unconstitutional? Whose constitution does it violate?

It violates our regional constitution in terms of national sovereignity, as allowing torrents of non-citizens to use WA medical facilities without our permission, and then hiding behind this document to ensure the legality of their use of our facilities is a drain on our resources that can be constituted as a form of economic invasion.

Article I only covers emergency services.

Article I violates a person's right to freedom to choose their medical services, its also a painfully obvious attack on a person's right to privacy if it can be done WITHOUT the person's permission, as you just said.

Nonsense. Explain to me how you think this allows "patients from other countries to litigate preferential treatment in lieu of citizens of a WA nation."

Your bill guarantees service, citizens of nations not in the WA can thus enter a country and demand immediate service under section II of this bill, as there is nothing illegal about entering a country for medical treatment, its only illegal when they demand to go first in the line.

They can make the records available to their colleagues and others involved in the patient's care. How is that unreasonable? Morbidity studies? That's pretty much standard procedure in the medical profession.

Your bill contradicts itself; it wants to ensure privacy between doctors and patients, and then it allows for information to be sent through medical databases and used as a legal instrument. Were it not a gross violation of civil rights, I suspect it would already be in place for such records to be released in those circumstances.

A very entertaining and dramatic diatribe, but completely without merit. Next!

Your opinion of other nation's decisions matters precious little. If you are unwilling to view criticisms and actually change legislation to please an actual majority, then that is your own issue, not mine.

And how, exactly, does a person leaving one jurisdiction where a procedure is illegal, and travelling to another jurisdiction where it is legal fall within the purview of this legislation?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire With respect, sir, are you being deliberately obtuse? Surely even a blind man can see how this legislation enables exactly the type of problem I have just described.

Or is it that your zeal for this resolution has precluded you from acknowledging the very real, and unintended, consequences of its passage?
Ultimately the question should not be why should we NOT pass it, but rather why should the respective member states surrender their autonomy in this matter? The Holy Empire of Lockelandia has no need for a foreign health Kommisariat which abrogates the will of the sovereign people of our land. We also share the very real privacy concerns which will arise out of passage of this legislation.

The Holy Empire of Cult Imperialis wishes to note that it concurs with all segments of this resoloution, bar one.

(VII) The standard of care shall not be affected by religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds, except where such factors are medically relevant to the required course of action.

Religion can not be agreed to, as all those who are not guided by His divine will are heretical, and are executed regardless.

Race can not be agreed to, as all non-human races (With the exception of Ogryns and Rattlins) are defined as Aliens, and are also against the Imperium's codelines.

However, due to the fact that our nation is predominantly clean of said denominations, and that the expense to the state of tending to said parties is so minute, we agree overall.

The Emperor protects.

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

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

Our nation cannot agree with the lack of protection towards those patients who are under the age and majority and who dissent with their legal guardian.

It violates our regional constitu...<snip>
1. I don't care.
2. Drafting of the resolution began 8 April 2008 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562365). Did you or anyone else from your region visit the drafting discussion to voice complaints?
3. Even if I were inclined to write legislation with a mind to not stepping on "regional constitutions", how would you suggest I do that? Visit every region in NationStates with a copy of the legislation (at every stage of drafting) and inquire: "Does this violate your regional constitution"? Or should I have just made a special point to visit yours?

Article I violates a person's right to freedom to choose their medical services, its also a painfully obvious attack on a person's right to privacy if it can be done WITHOUT the person's permission, as you just said.
How would you propose getting permission from someone who is on a trolley in the emergency room, unconscious, and near death?

Doctor: "We had to let the patient die. He refused to regain consciousness and grant permission to operate."

Your bill guarantees service, citizens of nations not in the WA can thus enter a country and demand immediate service under section II of this bill, as there is nothing illegal about entering a country for medical treatment, its only illegal when they demand to go first in the line.
Yes, non WA citizens who are lawfully present in a WA nation can request any medical procedure which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.

Your bill contradicts itself; it wants to ensure privacy between doctors and patients, and then it allows for information to be sent through medical databases and used as a legal instrument. Were it not a gross violation of civil rights, I suspect it would already be in place for such records to be released in those circumstances.
Are you so daft that you can't see circumstances where it would be beneficial to the patient to share the records?

Doctors regularly share records with their colleagues in order to facilitate treatment.

Records are regularly used as part of morbidity studies.

Courts often have legitimate reasons to subpoena records.

Did you, by any chance take part in the debate over the old Patients Rights Act in the NSUN? That act did, for the most part, seal records in perpetuity if the patient refused to grant permission for the records to be shared. Think about that very hard. Can you see some problems that could arise if the patient refused, or was unable, to give permission for records to be released?

Your opinion of other nation's decisions matters precious little. If you are unwilling to view criticisms and actually change legislation to please an actual majority, then that is your own issue, not mine.
Do you have any suggestions for how we could go about changing it, now that it is at vote?

With respect, sir, are you being deliberately obtuse? Surely even a blind man can see how this legislation enables exactly the type of problem I have just described.
It allows people to receive medical care when they are abroad. It allows them to undergo procedures which may be illegal in their native lands. Can they not already do this?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Not happy with this little bit

(i) Records shall be released in response to a warrant, subpoena, or similar legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction.

Private records are private and should not be released on the say so of the courts. They should only be released by the permission of the patient. So, unless this one bit is changed, i cant vote for it

Not happy with this little bit

(i) Records shall be released in response to a warrant, subpoena, or similar legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction.

Private records are private and should not be released on the say so of the courts. They should only be released by the permission of the patient. So, unless this one bit is changed, i cant vote for it
Well it can't be changed now and even if it could be, I wouldn't.

There are legitimate reasons for a court to subpoena medical records. One example would be a malpractice suit in which the patient died as a result of negligence on the part of his physician. Another would be a nation that has laws prohibiting certain medical procedures or practices. If the patient was a party to the unlawful procedure and refused to release the records, how could the nation prosecute the physician?

Insurance fraud schemes.

Murder and manslaughter cases in which the victim's injuries were pertinent to the case.

I could go on. There are sound reasons for courts to have access to medical records.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire


OOC: Back in the old NSUN, there was an earlier version of Patients Rights. That earlier version did not allow the release of records without the patient's consent. I was immediately bombarded with dozens of examples of situations in which that could pose a problem. I spent the better part of a week trying to think of ways for nations to loophole around the provisions of my own Resolution. That earlier version of Patient's Rights was flawed in regard to the release of records to courts. The flaw has now been corrected.

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

Does no one see a problem with allowing judges, justices, magistrates or whatever your country may call the overseers of justice to make decisions about the competency of others when they themselves have had no medical training and are not advised about medical issues.
The people of Socratic Platonism cannot support legislation that gives undue powers to the judicial system. Legislation such as this extends powers beyond that of legislative bodies, giving the courts a decision that is purely medical and certainly not within its own capacity. Courts have always been neutral triadic dispute resolvers, not extensions of bureaucracy.
If your national structure sees no problem with allowing non-medical professionals who have no more medical experience than your plumbers or electricians making decisions about the health of your citizens then ignore me.

Does no one see a problem with allowing judges, justices, magistrates or whatever your country may call the overseers of justice to make decisions about the competency of others when they themselves have had no medical training and are not advised about medical issues.
If a doctor believes that the patient is not competent to make decisions concerning his medical care who, then, should make those decisions? Should the doctor be allowed to just go ahead and perform the procedure even though the patient refuses to grant consent? The requirement of a court order protects the patient from doctors who would claim the patient was incompetent and then perform any procedure they please.
The people of Socratic Platonism cannot support legislation that gives undue powers to the judicial system.
Then vote against it. Quickly!

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[QUOTE=New Leicestershire;14333600]If a doctor believes that the patient is not competent to make decisions concerning his medical care who, then, should make those decisions? Should the doctor be allowed to just go ahead and perform the procedure even though the patient refuses to grant consent? The requirement of a court order protects the patient from doctors who would claim the patient was incompetent and then perform any procedure they please.

Your right that the doctor would need to protect his own interests as making medical decisions without consent would pose a problem, but section IV is for non-emergency situations. In such circumstances, I argue, that the doctor is compelled to respect the patient's wishes. The doctor who administers treatment against a patient's consent would be violating their right as a human the control of their own person. That doctor would be acting morally paternalisitic, meaning they are acting as an authority figure against the freedom of another. Granted a doctor is the most qualified authority figure when it comes to health. I do not think that they can take the choice away from a patient because the doctor's medical experience is not heavier when weighed against a person's individual liberty.
As for the event that the doctor does give treatment agains the patient's consent. The patient would have all the legal avenues to seek settlement for infringing on their rights.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

There is much arguing over what are, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Socialist State Senate, very minor points. Please allow me to speak to some of these points.

It has been asked "What is to stop someone from leaving a country where a procedure is illegal and going to one where it is legal?" That, comrades, is a matter of policing your own borders. If one were to leave a country where sexual reassignment surgery were illegal and come to the USSJ, we would most likely perform that surgery and deal with the international issues that may arise later.

It has also been asked, "Does the clause regarding patient records have the potential for abuse?" The answer is, in short, of course. Many well-intentioned laws have the potential for abuse. The question we must ask ourselves is thus: does the potential for abuse outweigh the intended reasoning behind this clause? I say, "No." It is, as we say in Jaynova, " Меньшее из 2 зол," or rather, the best, but not perfect, option. If you are afraid of courts making decisions in medical treatment, then do not allow your courts to ask for the records.

In conclusion, the United Socialist States of Jaynova vote FOR this resolution, and applaud the wisdom behind it.

Thank you."

In such circumstances, I argue, that the doctor is compelled to respect the patient's wishes. The doctor who administers treatment against a patient's consent would be violating their right as a human the control of their own person.
What if the patient suffers from a communicable disease? The disease is treatable, but the patient is mentally deranged and refuses treatment?

A coma patient that needs a tooth extracted or kidney stones treated?

There are times when it would be in the patient's best interest to be treated without his consent even if the condition is not imminently life-threatening.

There are other examples of non-emergency situations where the patient could be unable or unwilling to give consent. I won't bore you with them though because you seem determined to oppose the legislation.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

The government of the Emperor of Urgench has been unable to formalise its stance on this statute. We are tempted to abstain from voting.

This resolution contradicts some of our national laws, but we can see that this represents a huge improvement for other nations, can the honoured Ambassador for The Dominion of New Leicestershire convince us that this resolution's merits should induce us to change our laws voluntarily ?

Yours sincerely,

can the honoured Ambassador for The Dominion of New Leicestershire convince us that this resolution's merits should induce us to change our laws voluntarily ?
David Watts chuckles

When it passes you'll change your laws involuntarily. Could you be more specific, Ambassador? Which laws and what changes would be involved? Maybe I can convince you if I have some more details.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

In my humble opinion, the resolution as proposed adequately addresses the concerns that have been raised. Furthermore, it has the additional benefit of compelling nations whose health care systems are driven by profiteering insurance companies to reform their systems.

I will not be voting for this bill or any bill that changes the existing laws in the wonderful nation of Gargorilla.

Don't vote for those resolutions if you don't want to, then. But you need to understand that passing legislation which can, and sometimes does, supersede national legislation is kind of what we do here.

My country does not need the WA to tell us how to deal with our citizens and they will be over stepping their bounds by allowing a bill such as this to pass. The WA should not be allowed to dictate if the government is paying for the health care of is citizens or not. It is the right of the governing body to chose the course that best fits their nation needs.

Again, you don't quite get what we do here.

I beg of the members of the WA to not vote for any bills that change existing laws in other lands even if it seams to be a good idea. This is a blatant over stepping of bounds in all aspects of the WA.

So, even if something is good and beneficial, you want us to vote against it.....why, exactly? Just to show how cool and defiant we are? I snort in the general direction of your stance, sir. And as for "overstepping of bounds", again, you really ought to research what the WA does, and how it does it, before going on about what you think it does.

Don't allow the rest of the world to run your country, do it your self, please, for the sake of freedom, allow individual countries to decide for them selves.

Individual countries can decide for themselves to leave the WA whenever they don't like legislation that's been passed. No one is forcing your "wonderful nation", or any other nation, to be here. You've really got to present a better argument against this resolution than "we don't like the WA telling us what to do". We're not even sure whether or not we're going to vote in favor of this resolution, but when we do decide, we'll base our decision on a much more sound foundation than that.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

[QUOTE=New Leicestershire;14328435][b]Patient's Rights Act

"(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions."

I dissagree greatly with this part here.

If the patient is not fit to make descisions, and no parent/gaurdian/other is able to tell the staff that, then who would be able to make the descision whether or not they are fit or not?

This would drag things out, and if a wrong descision is made, people could sue for it. This would drag things out for long periods of time where doctors and other staff would not be working, thus lowering the total amount of staff, and also costing the government lots of excess money.

all in all tho, well done on this!

VOTE YES!

David Watts chuckles

When it passes you'll change your laws involuntarily. Could you be more specific, Ambassador? Which laws and what changes would be involved? Maybe I can convince you if I have some more details.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire


The laws will change in Urgench because we choose to continue to be members of this organisation, honoured Ambassador, that is entirely voluntary is it not?


Our national laws on the matter of consent to treatment by an incapacitated patient are complicated ( deliberately ) and have different provisions and proscriptions in each of the main regions of the Empire.

Will this statute simplify and improve our situation ?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Furthermore, it has the additional benefit of compelling nations whose health care systems are driven by profiteering insurance companies to reform their systems.And how exactly does it do that?

The WA should not be allowed to dictate if the government is paying for the health care of is citizens or not.Then I have good news for you, this doesn't do that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Will this statute simplify and improve our situation ?
Well yes, I would think that it could certainly simplify your situation. If statutes vary from one region of the Empire to another then they could be standardised under this Resolution. Of course there is some wiggle-room in the Resolution, so you could still allow some regional variations if you wish.

Likewise I obviously believe that it would improve the situation in all WA members or I would not have submitted it. Of course I'm not familiar with your laws but I assume them to be fair and just. You may already be largely in compliance with this legislation.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: I'll be out of town from this afternoon until sometime Sunday. By that time the vote will have ended. There are others here who either took part in the drafting or are familiar with the text and can answer questions in my absence.

[QUOTE=Flibbleites;14335714]And how exactly does it do that?

It does that because any nation that primarily provides health care as a for-profit venture will find that this removes most of the profit motive, so it will begin to evolve toward universal health care.

Well yes, I would think that it could certainly simplify your situation. If statutes vary from one region of the Empire to another then they could be standardised under this Resolution. Of course there is some wiggle-room in the Resolution, so you could still allow some regional variations if you wish.

Likewise I obviously believe that it would improve the situation in all WA members or I would not have submitted it. Of course I'm not familiar with your laws but I assume them to be fair and just. You may already be largely in compliance with this legislation.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire



In the Crownland regions of the Empire, in which Mongol custom is better observed, Urgenchi law allows individuals the right to Nenhirtunger ( " to desire death" ) which is to say, to choose the time of their own death rather than be cut down by one's foes ( be that a tartar slaver of old or terminal disease or injury of now ), meaning that one may make it one's legal wish to be allowed to refuse treatment at all times and in most situations in the knowledge that this may cause ones own death.

This custom is not universally observed but it is legally recognised, would our law in this regard remain in compliance honoured Ambassador.

And how exactly does it do that?

It does that because any nation that primarily provides health care as a for-profit venture will find that this removes most of the profit motive, so it will begin to evolve toward universal health care.

And how exactly does it do that? Are you perhaps referring to this part of clause II? (the bolded portion)
(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed, and for which confirmed funding is available.Guess what, the funding mentioned doesn't have to come from the government, private health insurance or plain old cash would work just as well as confirmed funding sources.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Yelda says he'll be away for a couple of days so I'll attempt to answer in his stead.
In the Crownland regions of the Empire, in which Mongol custom is better observed, Urgenchi law allows individuals the right to Nenhirtunger ( " to desire death" ) which is to say, to choose the time of their own death rather than be cut down by one's foes ( be that a tartar slaver of old or terminal disease or injury of now ), meaning that one may make it one's legal wish to be allowed to refuse treatment at all times and in most situations in the knowledge that this may cause ones own death.

This custom is not universally observed but it is legally recognised, would our law in this regard remain in compliance honoured Ambassador.
I believe your law would remain in compliance.

Given clauses III and IX, an individual would know their refusal of treatment would endanger their life. The Urgenchi law acknowledges, I would assume, that a person has the right to Nenhirtunger so long as they are mentally competent. Furthermore, I would assume the courts with jurisdiction over the Mongol territories know this. As such, no court would have the right to arbitrarily strip an individual of the right to Nenhirtunger through clause IV.

The only exception would be where the refusal of treatment would endanger others, most likely in the case of infectious illness. If an individual contracted a communicable disease and refused treatment and isolation, an Urgenchi physician might be authorised to override the refusal in the interest of public safety. If your right of Nenhirtunger is so absolute as to deny this possibility, then that is the only case I can see where this law would compel you to change your laws.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC: Yelda says he'll be away for a couple of days so I'll attempt to answer in his stead.

I believe your law would remain in compliance.

Given clauses III and IX, an individual would know their refusal of treatment would endanger their life. The Urgenchi law acknowledges, I would assume, that a person has the right to Nenhirtunger so long as they are mentally competent. Furthermore, I would assume the courts with jurisdiction over the Mongol territories know this. As such, no court would have the right to arbitrarily strip an individual of the right to Nenhirtunger through clause IV.

The only exception would be where the refusal of treatment would endanger others, most likely in the case of infectious illness. If an individual contracted a communicable disease and refused treatment and isolation, an Urgenchi physician might be authorised to override the refusal in the interest of public safety. If your right of Nenhirtunger is so absolute as to deny this possibility, then that is the only case I can see where this law would compel you to change your laws.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria




We cannot but thank the honoured Ms. Benson for her elucidation of the answers to our question.


Of course she is correct the Nenhirtunger is subject to the condiction that those who avail of it must be at least in possession of decision making faculties adequate to making such a choice as the Nenhirtunger is.



Yours sincerely,

We're Libertarian Socialists, a category not granted by NS. However, for reference, we tend to fluctuate between left-leaning college states and liberal democratic socialists.

With that said, We can't vote FOR the resolution. It is unclear, reading the resolution, what a "patient" is. Who are these people? Where in the document is it defined?

Because we have been defrauded before, we refuse to take part in it until the term "patient" has been clearly defined within the text of it.

Thank you.

We're Libertarian Socialists, a category not granted by NS. However, for reference, we tend to fluctuate between left-leaning college states and liberal democratic socialists.

With that said, We can't vote FOR the resolution. It is unclear, reading the resolution, what a "patient" is. Who are these people? Where in the document is it defined?

Because we have been defrauded before, we refuse to take part in it until the term "patient" has been clearly defined within the text it.

Thank you.

You're joking right? Patient wasn't defined because it's fucking blatantly obvious what a patient is!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

That won't hold up in court. And don't be a dick.

That won't hold up in court. And don't be a dick.

You're telling me not to be a dick? I'm not the one who can't figure out how to use a dictionary to look up the word patient (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patient).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

which dictionary? The one I write?

It is a law proposal, not a soup order. What if my nation's laws are such that a patient is defined as "a person who has been admitted by a hospital and has already received treatment"? It changes the character of the proposal quite alot. In this case, the person wouldn't qualify for these special treatments until -after- they had recieved them. A paradox, a loophole, call it what you will.

You tell me what a patient is, citing the resolution, and I'll be quiet. You have no need to cuss at me or call me an idiot. I'm a PhD student, and you're being a dick.

Afterall, I'm only pointing out an inadequacy in the text of the proposal; why are you so defensive?

"...can't figure out how to use a dictionary..." is disguised as intuition, but it's really just your attempt to appear intelligent and powerful by insulting me; it pretty well sums up what i see every day from my clinicals: feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. Are you okay?

which dictionary? The one I write?

It is a law proposal, not a soup order. What if my nation's laws are such that a patient is defined as "a person who has been admitted by a hospital and has already received treatment"? It changes the character of the proposal quite alot. In this case, the person wouldn't qualify for these special treatments until -after- they had recieved them. A paradox, a loophole, call it what you will.Congratulations, you've just won the award for the worst argument used in this debate. Here's your trophy.http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/pewter_trophy_lrg.jpg

You tell me what a patient is, citing the resolution, and I'll be quiet.The definition of "patient" is not needed in the resolution because it's common fucking sense. Besides that, there's a character limit on resolutions and this proposal is close to it, including a definition of "patient" probably would have pushed it over the limit.

You have no need to cuss at me or call me an idiot. I'm a PhD student, and you're being a dick.Go do your homework, I have a PhD, see (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Bob_Flibble).

Afterall, I'm only pointing out an inadequacy in the text of the proposal; why are you so defensive? I'm defending it because the author isn't here to do it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So you won't stop being a dick for a moment to have an intellectual conversation? Fine.

My argument (that patient is not defined, and it would be easy to defraud the proposed law because of it) is perfectly valid; your "common sense" approach isn't. It brings nothing to the discussion.

You're the person who entered the information "about you" and half of it is set in a fictional setting. Why should I care what your education is (even if it IS true) if you won't simply accept that I'm trying to conversate, not argue.

No really, I just want to talk; I'm not here to be a cock, and if you are, well, fine, you win. You're a cock.

Anyone else want to take a swing at it?

If we're going to be so nit-picky as to define obvious words, then the resolution should have defined "treatment", "medical care", "emergency", and others. And there are plenty of other resolutions that would have required definitions of words within them as well.

However, those of us that already know what these words mean won't worry about it. If your nation will skew the definition of "patient" to screw people out of medical treatments (wait... what does that mean?), then go ahead.

We won't define patient in such a way as to screw people; it's hypothetical, and we only offered that definition to prove the point that it really accomplishes nothing.
Which is why we voted no.

Thank you for a reasonable response ^_^.

*leaves the forum for good*

We won't define patient in such a way as to screw people; it's hypothetical, and we only offered that definition to prove the point that it really accomplishes nothing.
Which is why we voted no.

Well, then, just about any laws passed by anyone could be interpreted in such a way that they won't accomplish anything. Or, they can be interpreted in such a way that they accomplish too much. So why have laws, then?


Anyways... the resolution looks to be doing quite well. I've urged my region's WA members to support this resolution.

So you won't stop being a dick for a moment to have an intellectual conversation? Fine.In order to have an intellectual conversation I'd have to be talking to someone with an actual intellect, which apparently would exclude you.

My argument (that patient is not defined, and it would be easy to defraud the proposed law because of it) is perfectly valid; your "common sense" approach isn't. It brings nothing to the discussion.You know, you are the first person to have a problem with the word patient not being defined, even back when this resolution was being drafted no one complained about patient not being defined, seems to me like common sense was doing fairly well until you showed up.

No really, I just want to talk; I'm not here to be a cock, and if you are, well, fine, you win. You're a cock.

Anyone else want to take a swing at it?You're insisting that this resolution is useless because patient is not defined, that seems cockish to me. Hell, the Kennyite's Creative Solutions Agency would probably find that a stretch.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


You're the person who entered the information "about you" and half of it is set in a fictional setting. Why should I care what your education is (even if it IS true) if you won't simply accept that I'm trying to conversate, not argue.OOC: OK, you have forced me to break character. Guess what, that entire wiki page is fictional because it's about a fictional character, it's called role playing and people do that in this forum. And yes Bob's being a bit of a dick right now, but when you consider that he's dealing with both your ridiculous argument and the guy who wants to castrate every child protection law on the books (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577444) he's having to deal with a lot of bullshit right now and he's getting a little pissed off and he acts like a dick when he gets pissed off.

So you won't stop being a dick for a moment to have an intellectual conversation? Fine.

My argument (that patient is not defined, and it would be easy to defraud the proposed law because of it) is perfectly valid; your "common sense" approach isn't. It brings nothing to the discussion.

You're the person who entered the information "about you" and half of it is set in a fictional setting. Why should I care what your education is (even if it IS true) if you won't simply accept that I'm trying to conversate, not argue.

No really, I just want to talk; I'm not here to be a cock, and if you are, well, fine, you win. You're a cock.

Anyone else want to take a swing at it?




Is any of the above quoted intervention intended to be this "intellectual debate" the honoured Ambassador for 0100001101010111 is so ardent for ?

Or is it just a lot of " No your a cock, No your a cock " rubbish we should all feel free to ignore ?


Should we "conversate" ( what ever that may be ) on the basis of your petulant squawkings honoured Ambassador ?



Yours e.t.c.

Stop being rude to one another. Please.
In law, where a word is not defined it bears its ordinary meaning. So if 'patient' is not defined its meaning is "a person who requires medical care". ""a person who has been admitted by a hospital and has already received treatment" is a special meaning and if that what is meant it would have to be included in the resolution text. It wasn't included so it isn't the meaning.

'Religion', 'race' and 'sex' aren't defined either, but because of the rule they don't need to be. This rule is jolly helpful in avoiding resolutions becoming lexicographers wet dreams. As to which dictionary judges around Jumblyjum usually use the Oxford English, but there are plenty of others. The point is to get to the ordinary meaning.

I don't have a PhD. Or indeed any degree. Is declaration of ones educational achievement to become compulsory. LOL. Jj.

OOC: I'm back a day early. Thanks to QuoD, Flib, Urgench, Subistratica and JumblyJum for going toe to toe with what must surely be one of the great debating talents of our generation, 0100001101010111.

We're Libertarian Socialists, a category not granted by NS. However, for reference, we tend to fluctuate between left-leaning college states and liberal democratic socialists.

With that said, We can't vote FOR the resolution. It is unclear, reading the resolution, what a "patient" is. Who are these people? Where in the document is it defined?

Because we have been defrauded before, we refuse to take part in it until the term "patient" has been clearly defined within the text of it.

Thank you.

That won't hold up in court. And don't be a dick.

which dictionary? The one I write?

It is a law proposal, not a soup order. What if my nation's laws are such that a patient is defined as "a person who has been admitted by a hospital and has already received treatment"? It changes the character of the proposal quite alot. In this case, the person wouldn't qualify for these special treatments until -after- they had recieved them. A paradox, a loophole, call it what you will.

You tell me what a patient is, citing the resolution, and I'll be quiet. You have no need to cuss at me or call me an idiot. I'm a PhD student, and you're being a dick.

Afterall, I'm only pointing out an inadequacy in the text of the proposal; why are you so defensive?

"...can't figure out how to use a dictionary..." is disguised as intuition, but it's really just your attempt to appear intelligent and powerful by insulting me; it pretty well sums up what i see every day from my clinicals: feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. Are you okay?

So you won't stop being a dick for a moment to have an intellectual conversation? Fine.

My argument (that patient is not defined, and it would be easy to defraud the proposed law because of it) is perfectly valid; your "common sense" approach isn't. It brings nothing to the discussion.

You're the person who entered the information "about you" and half of it is set in a fictional setting. Why should I care what your education is (even if it IS true) if you won't simply accept that I'm trying to conversate, not argue.

No really, I just want to talk; I'm not here to be a cock, and if you are, well, fine, you win. You're a cock.

Anyone else want to take a swing at it?

We won't define patient in such a way as to screw people; it's hypothetical, and we only offered that definition to prove the point that it really accomplishes nothing.
Which is why we voted no.

Thank you for a reasonable response ^_^.

*leaves the forum for good*
*pelts the ambassador from 0100001101010111 with strawberry tarts on the way out*

In New Leicestershire and I'm sure in 99.9% of nations, patient shall be defined as...patient.

If the government of 0100001101010111 wishes to define patient as "a stuffed raccoon holding an 8 x 10 print of Matisse's portrait The Green Stripe", and the courts of 0100001101010111 are idiotic enough to let that interpretation stand, that's super. I do not care.

On to more substantial matters.

I'd like to thank all of the delegations which provided assistance in the drafting, particularly the delegations from Quintessence of Dust, the Gobbannaen World Assembly Mission, and Bears Armed. Also, a huge thank you to all those took up the debate in my absence.


David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

The Sacred Eternal Procession of Subistratica applauds the passage of this resolution.

Nicely done, Mr Watts, nicely done. If you aren't careful, people will start regarding you as a major force in the World Assembly :)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the Authors of this statute on their success.


Yours sincerely,

The Sacred Eternal Procession of Subistratica applauds the passage of this resolution.

Nicely done, Mr Watts, nicely done. If you aren't careful, people will start regarding you as a major force in the World Assembly :)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the Authors of this statute on their success.


Yours sincerely,

Thank you, thank you and thank you!

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

OOC: This thread needs to be un-stickied now.

edit: Ah! I see it has.