NationStates Jolt Archive

Declaration of Medical Discrimination Act

It is understood that the responsibilities of health-care are delegated by the Nations to many government offices and businesses alike, as well as other more unique or enlightened methods. Also, It is accepted that the current abideing Intranational laws or established fiscal policy may exist in the form that may contradict this legislation, which therefore, shall only be mandated into practice/enforcement Internationally. With this being kept in consideration, we submit by way of this proposal that denying Insurance/Healthcare is based upon medically relevant statistics, generalizations, theories, predictions to be, in fact, considered discrimination and ,therefore, illegal.



RECONIZEING that Adding medical discrimination to the list of discriminations cited and abstained by the Internationally established associations/committees must include but not be limited to:
1) World Health Authority
(World Health Authority-page 7 IV) In which Mandates the establishment of WHA offices in the member states of the World Assembly, as necessary in order to:
a) Articulate and advise governments on health matters with information that is both ethical and evidence-based,)
b)Proposing that medical discrimination is unethical.
2) Health Research & Development Division
(is hereby created within the WHA,)
3) International Red Cross Association
(an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule.)
a)Proposing that the idea of 'support for all nations,' includes support for diseases/viruses/ailments exclusive to any one particular Ethnicity.
4) World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC)
a)Proposing that organs not be restricted or marginalized in the case of elderly or the questionably physically fit, including but not limited to pre-existing health concerns.
5) Care Certification Team
6) Center for Disease Prevention and Control

UNDERSTANDING that all of the above shall be abided by:
1)Patients Right Act -page 6 (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.
2)Proposing that matters deemed 'medically relevant,' may ALTER methods of treatment but not RESTRICT anybody from care in so much as medicines/procedures exist that provide alternatives.

ENCOURAGING member nations of the WA to provide legislation within their own countries that support this Act.

ENDEAVORING to prohibit doctors from denying care in effort to supplement their own recorded percentage of success.

HOPING to prohibit Insurance Companies from denying insurance or offering unfair policies to those with pre-existing medical conditions.

MANDATING that internationally sanctioned organizations abide by this proposal.

OPERATING in accordance with Resolution #160.
"People with physical, mental and developmental disabilities should be fully entitled to participate fully in all societies and should be guaranteed full and equal rights;"

MAINTAINING the rights of care-givers described by past resolutions.
a)Every Nation has the right to quarantine any inbound passenger and potential-pathogen-carrier-cargo from Nation which is hit by the outbreak. (Resolution 77)
b) Every Nation has the right to ban import of food- and medical-product which is suspected to be a potential-pathogen-carrier from Nation which is hit by the outbreak. (Resolution 77)
c) Every Doctor has the right to deny care when their own lives are jeopardized by contact with communicably ill patients.

Authored by: Absolvability, NX401

With help, this time, I spent a little more time drafting this new proposal and want to submit it for consideration in hopes of raising awareness before officially proposing it. Please, assembled Representatives and esteemed Ambassadors, tell me what you think...

OPERATING in accordance with Resolution #160.
(Resolution 77)

The WA doesn't have a resolution #160 or #77.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

*Little Reminder*

The NSUN's old laws with the WA are as inadmissible as pickles with ice cream.

A simple enough matter to delete having mentioned those. I thought some of it seemed odd, but wanted to include anything that was relevant. I guess I must've dipped into the historical resolutions.

I appreciate the tip, but still wonder what your reaction to this proposal is.

A good start but sadly the UN has been replaced just over a year ago. A resolution to control pandemics would be nice, but it mustn't restrict the civil liberties that do not need apply.

We are aware that the mere mention of the Charter of Civil Rights is enough to bring certain delegations to the point of infuriation with us ( Mongkha looks over in the direction of the delegation of Bears Armed ) but we feel it fair to point out that the provisions of this statute are more than adequately covered by the CoCR and that in fact this statute would represent a major duplication of many of the Charter's provisions.


Discrimination of the kind described in this proposal is already illegal.


Yours,

Hey i got a question, where can i find The Charter of Civil Rights that Urgench Described? I would like to take a look at it and share this information with my co-author

Hey i got a question, where can i find The Charter of Civil Rights that Urgench Described? I would like to take a look at it and share this information with my co-author


As requested - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14529687&postcount=37



Yours,

The Charter of Civil Rights is resolution 35, on page 7. I see that Urgench (Mongkha?) is in fact the author of the Charter, which gave me cause to chuckle for a moment. No wonder the representative wasted little time.

I believe the Charter aims to protect against the same discriminations, but am still not sure that it in fact does. Most prevalently it becomes obvious to me that the Charter takes effect on a National level, while I want to implement the same idea on an International level.
Article 1
"a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

I am not sure the Charter appropriately describes the word 'treatment.' Is it to be construed as far as medicine goes, or does it more accurately describe a more broad and moral scale of decency? We are also aware that this Charter probably grants doctors, insurance companies, and health providers certain rights in as far as "compelling practical purposes," goes.

We fear this may include, given the free enterprise of many nations, protecting the rights of the aforementioned to see to their own business means on grounds that may seem compelling but are in fact greedy and not at all for the general good. In short, my only intention is to reinforce this Charter, and in fact add a little more to it.

"d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states."

And again noting that this Charter provides almost exclusively to citizens in "the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present," and that this ideal need be adopted by WA sanctioned organizations, as many are of a donated/donating nature and are therefore not able to tend to the "general public," which is protected in the Charter.

Declaration of Medical Discrimination Act

It is understood that the responsibilities of health-care are delegated by the Nations to many government offices and businesses alike, as well as other more unique or enlightened methods. Also, It is accepted that the Charter of Civil Rights lays proud precedent for this legislation, which therefore, shall only be mandated into practice/enforcement Internationally. With this being kept in consideration, we submit by way of this proposal that denying Insurance/Healthcare is based upon medically relevant statistics, generalizations, theories, predictions to be, in fact, considered discrimination and therefore, illegal.



RECOGNIZEING that Adding medical discrimination to the list of discriminations cited and abstained by the Internationally established associations/committees must include but not be limited to:
1) World Health Authority
(World Health Authority-page 7 IV) In which Mandates the establishment of WHA offices in the member states of the World Assembly, as necessary in order to:
a) Articulate and advise governments on health matters with information that is both ethical and evidence-based,)
b)Proposing that medical discrimination is unethical.
2) Health Research & Development Division
(is hereby created within the WHA,)
3) International Red Cross Association
(an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule.)
a)Proposing that the idea of 'support for all nations,' includes support for diseases/viruses/ailments exclusive to any one particular Ethnicity.
4) World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC)
a)Proposing that organs not be restricted or marginalized in the case of elderly or the questionably physically fit, including but not limited to pre-existing health concerns.
5) Care Certification Team
6) Center for Disease Prevention and Control

UNDERSTANDING that all of the above shall be abided by:
1)Patients Right Act -page 6 (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.
2)Proposing that matters deemed 'medically relevant,' may ALTER methods of treatment but not RESTRICT anybody from care in so much as medicines/procedures exist that provide alternatives.

ENCOURAGING member nations of the WA to provide legislation within their own countries that support this Act.

ENDEAVORING to prohibit doctors from denying care in effort to supplement their own recorded percentage of success.

HOPING to prohibit Insurance Companies from denying insurance or offering unfair policies to those with pre-existing medical conditions.

MANDATING that internationally sanctioned organizations abide by this proposal.

OPERATING in accordance with the Charter of Civil Rights.
a) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

EXPANDING this internationally, and redefining "treatment," to WITHOUT A DOUBT encompass all of the above.

MAINTAINING the rights of care-givers and nations to:
a)Every Nation has the right to quarantine any inbound passenger and potential-pathogen-carrier-cargo from Nation which is hit by the outbreak.
b) Every Nation has the right to ban import of food- and medical-product which is suspected to be a potential-pathogen-carrier from Nation which is hit by the outbreak.
c) Every Doctor has the right to deny care when their own lives are jeopardized by contact with communicably ill patients.

Authored by: Absolvability, NX401

OOC- This is better, right? Also, could someone tell me how to... uh, for lack of another word, 'spam' a message to all the delegates? I've recieved several telegrams raising awareness, and would like to do the same for this proposal.

I believe the Charter aims to protect against the same discriminations, but am still not sure that it in fact does. Most prevalently it becomes obvious to me that the Charter takes effect on a National level, while I want to implement the same idea on an International level.
Article 1
"a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present."

"b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present "

The underlined portion deals with international law quite clearly.

I am not sure the Charter appropriately describes the word 'treatment.' Is it to be construed as far as medicine goes, or does it more accurately describe a more broad and moral scale of decency? We are also aware that this Charter probably grants doctors, insurance companies, and health providers certain rights in as far as "compelling practical purposes," goes.

"a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states."

This clause clearly covers all government services and services provided to the public by private companies, defining treatment of a medical nature is not necessary in order to prevent discrimination in such treatment. And no Doctors, insurance companies and health providers are most assuredly not given any kind of exemption under the wording of the CoCR, governments are allowed to implement certain exemptions which must be in line with the example given within the text of the statute.





We fear this may include, given the free enterprise of many nations, protecting the rights of the aforementioned to see to their own business means on grounds that may seem compelling but are in fact greedy and not at all for the general good. In short, my only intention is to reinforce this Charter, and in fact add a little more to it.

Your fears honoured Ambassador would be unfounded. Greed on the part of private businesses is not a compelling practical purpose of the kind which is described by the example given within the CoCR. What you are describing is duplication and amendment, both of which are illegal.

"d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states."

Indeed, this clause allows member states to augment anti-discrimination measures in their own national law.

And again noting that this Charter provides almost exclusively to citizens in "the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present," and that this ideal need be adopted by WA sanctioned organizations, as many are of a donated/donating nature and are therefore not able to tend to the "general public," which is protected in the Charter.

It is not clear what your Excellency is trying to say here, but all services provided to the public, by any sort of government controlled or privately owned or NGO organisation are covered by the wording of the CoCR.



Yours,

"b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present "

That is a fine clause, assuming some other resolution grants them these rights internationally. Which is entirely what my proposal intends to do.

This will not be a duplication of anything, as it deals with an entirely different scale. Nor shall it be considered an amendment, as the only possible change will be a more elaborated definition of the term 'medical discrimination,' and an International legal reference that the quoted clause already supports.

It is not clear what your Excellency is trying to say here, but all services provided to the public, by any sort of government controlled or privately owned or NGO organisation are covered by the wording of the CoCR.

I disagree, and think I've already explained why. Let the legal matter pass for now, and consider how very well this will all fit together in the end. I've drafted this precisely to COINCIDE with all the other great steps we, thanks in no small portion to you, have made. Furthermore, "d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states," seems to make this proposal legal, whether that was your intention or not.

It would seem... contradictory... for you to oppose this, even taking into account your well founded arguement. In the end, a matter of votes will decide who is correct, and I see no reason for the author of the CoCR to oppose this Act. I implore my esteemed colleague not to take offense, be unnecessarily proud, or insinuate that ANYBODY thinks his Charter to be in any way less than satisfactory.

That is a fine clause, assuming some other resolution grants them these rights internationally. Which is entirely what my proposal intends to do.

This will not be a duplication of anything, as it deals with an entirely different scale. Nor shall it be considered an amendment, as the only possible change will be a more elaborated definition of the term 'medical discrimination,' and an International legal reference that the quoted clause already supports.



I disagree, and think I've already explained why. Let the legal matter pass for now, and consider how very well this will all fit together in the end. I've drafted this precisely to COINCIDE with all the other great steps we, thanks in no small portion to you, have made. Furthermore, "d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states," seems to make this proposal legal, whether that was your intention or not.

It would seem... contradictory... for you to oppose this, even taking into account your well founded arguement. In the end, a matter of votes will decide who is correct, and I see no reason for the author of the CoCR to oppose this Act. I implore my esteemed colleague not to take offense, be unnecessarily proud, or insinuate that ANYBODY thinks his Charter to be in any way less than satisfactory.



We are not in any way offended, and indeed we are glad that another state has such laudable aims in diminishing the iniquity of discrimination.

That is exactly why we are trying to prevent your Excellency from making certain errors which will cause your statute to be ruled illegal under the rules for writing resolutions for this organisation.

Any duplication, amendment, or "house of cards" infraction will likely lead to this statute being deleted from the proposals list if and when your Excellency submits it for approval.

But if your Excellency prefers we can refrain from offering our advice, and allow your delegation to fall foul of the rules and learn by their own mistakes instead of offering them the benefit of our own experience.


Yours,

Advice is welcomed, but is also subjective in nature. I hold to my original belief that no such infractions are entailed by this proposal.

"Declaration of Medical Discrimination Act

It is understood that the responsibilities of health-care are delegated by the Nations to many government offices and businesses alike, as well as other more unique or enlightened methods. Also, It is accepted that the Charter of Civil Rights lays proud precedent for this legislation, which therefore, shall only be mandated into practice/enforcement Internationally. With this being kept in consideration, we submit by way of this proposal that denying Insurance/Healthcare is based upon medically relevant statistics, generalizations, theories, predictions to be, in fact, considered discrimination and therefore, illegal."

Did you take note of all the small changes I'd made for my second draft? Consider the introduction to be, in large part, a disclaimer. 'Hello, we are not here to duplicate or amend anything.'

Several references to past resolutions are made in this proposal in precise effort to reveal how it all works together without getting in eachother's way. I have, in fact, done my homework this time, and KNOW that if this proposal is deleted it will be because some moderator/administrator somewhere didn't pay enough attention either to the proposal itself or to this discussion. I have explained myself.

It sickens me that, evidently, the only way to make anything better is to repeal something else.

Have it your way honoured Ambassador.



Yours,

Come now. I don't mean to be dismissive. Perhaps a little defensive, but for good cause. Or reasoned cause, to appear less biased.

Do you think your Charter provided necessary support for prohibiting medical discrimination, in as far as we've defined it, on an International level? Taking into consideration extra stress between a collaboration of Doctors between multi-cultural, of varying degrees of technology, and variably healthy nations?

Come now. I don't mean to be dismissive. Perhaps a little defensive, but for good cause. Or reasoned cause, to appear less biased.

Do you think your Charter provided necessary support for prohibiting medical discrimination, in as far as we've defined it, on an International level? Taking into consideration extra stress between a collaboration of Doctors between multi-cultural, of varying degrees of technology, and variably healthy nations?


The CoCR banned discrimination of all kinds, medical or otherwise, it did not discriminate in that regard. Even the monstrously arcane phenomenon "international medical discrimination" outlined within this statute is now illegal.

We recommend the honoured Ambassador read the text of the CoCR closely and read each word carefully, we are sure that they will see what we are trying to say. However we will not continue to labour this point, if the honoured Ambassador really thinks that their delegation's resolution does not violate several rules regarding the writing of resolutions then we urge them to test their assertions and submit this resolution forthwith.


Yours sincerely,

If the honoured Ambassador for Absolvability wishes to write a resolution on ethics in medicine or a code of practice for private health care providers and insurers then this is perhaps a rather oblique way of going about things.

Perhaps a change of approach might help.


Yours,

Absolvability, we must agree with the ambassador here that it does indeed covers many discriminatory factors of all kinds. However, Upon Reading the CoCR, it is a very vague about its descriminational laws. its lacks certanity about what seems to be descriminatory or not. For example this quote, "or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination" is very vague and cannot hold up to its own purposes. I see nothing about Medical Descrimination in the Argument, But if i ever questioned about it i would just a simple "yes" unless someone did there homework and dove a little deeper. Apperently you can say "yes" to anything even when it is not added within the CoCR.

Secondly, many people do not follow this law whatsoever, even though your The ambassador has Proposed and made this law proper for enforcement. I have been tailing in the Economic Forum for quite some time and in that time i have been called a Soschie. I do not want to a called a sochie in anyway shape of form as it classifys me as a set of people that are 1) less in number 2)more likly to protest for their rights and political veiws and 3) i do not need to be called a name. An example of a Solcialist being called a "Soschie" is like a Japenesse Person Being called a J*P. If you know your history, then you do know what i am talking about then.(i am pretty sure thats how they spelt it but you can look on the forum and see it for your self)

lastly, with this Act, it will help you Clarify the CoCR into understanding a little more about "or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". Since this Act is all about Medical Descrimination and looking out for the better intrests of the Nation states within the WA, We want to make sure to clear up that vagueness that has been put into place by the CoCR so anyone with a true medical question or any type of Descrimination within the Medical feild can look it up instead of just saying a simple yes and a whole description of what you can tell them about the CoCR and contorl what you speak since it is so vauge.

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

We've done a lot of talking in a little time. I took a closer look at the rules for making a proposal and found what exactly a 'House of Cards' amendment is. There isn't a very good explaination of it, but they give that one example which I'm terribly guilty of. The thing is though... I'm not changing any of those passed resolutions, I'm just supplying proof that nothing conflicts. Again, my proposal is international and your resolution is not. My proposal does indeed stand alone even if all resolutions were struck from existance. All I did was assign duties to an existing committee. Hmm, I guess I'm guilty of excessive back referencing. Just trying to give credit where credit is due. And avoid plagiarism.

I appreciate my co-authors support. No doubt also vehemently aware that some strange misinterpretation of the system is preventing decent legislation from passing.

I regret to inform him that I may be guilty for coining "Soschie," though in a sarcastic manner. And considering the three listed qualifications, I'm proud to say that's exactly what I am. Of course I speak good naturedly about it, considering my co-author and I are ignorant to prejudices of any kind.