GA Resolution: Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc

[Lenlyvit]

Ban On Sterilisation Of Minors Etc

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum

Whereas the sterilisation of minors or incompetent persons is not prohibited by the legislation of this most excellent Assembly :

And whereas it would be most safe to entrust the authority to make such a determination to independent medical authorities :

Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :

1. It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

2. The WACC may make regulations to clarify upon and enforce this resolution.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Deleted]

Several problems with this one:

1) I am generally opposed to these piecemeal resolutions, that don't make a serious attempt to address the entirety of an issue.

2) Given MG's recent, and far more comprehensive effort, this just seems like the author exploiting the emotional reaction to the controversial clause in that resolution, for an easy notch.

3) The almost comedic tone leaves me feeling like the author genuinely doesn't care about the issue at all, but has left enough of an open-end to avoid being called out on the frivolity. I think this matter is better left to an author who will take the issue seriously.

2) On a more technical note, whet, exactly, is 'an independent Institutional review board'? By what parameters is such a board chosen? Given the use of 'an', is there to be only one board serving the entire multiverse? What should be the professional composition of this board from among the medical community, and, who decides? Do individual nations make these decisions, or is the structure determined by the WA? All questions without answers.

Given the brevity, lack of clarity, and the seeming lack of sincerity, THX, through its WA proxy, will be voting against.

[Jabberwocky]

Good lord, who sterilized minors? Against.

[Lenlyvit]

Oct 17, 2019 18:28:41 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

Several problems with this one:

1) I am generally opposed to these piecemeal resolutions, that don't make a serious attempt to address the entirety of an issue.

2) Given MG's recent, and far more comprehensive effort, this just seems like the author exploiting the emotional reaction to the controversial clause in that resolution, for an easy notch.

3) The almost comedic tone leaves me feeling like the author genuinely doesn't care about the issue at all, but has left enough of an open-end to avoid being called out on the frivolity. I think this matter is better left to an author who will take the issue seriously.

2) On a more technical note, whet, exactly, is 'an independent Institutional review board'? By what parameters is such a board chosen? Given the use of 'an', is there to be only one board serving the entire multiverse? What should be the professional composition of this board from among the medical community, and, who decides? Do individual nations make these decisions, or is the structure determined by the WA? All questions without answers.

Given the brevity, lack of clarity, and the seeming lack of sincerity, THX, through its WA proxy, will be voting against.

This pretty much sums up my opinion.

[Sophiaora]

I don't like this resolution for its unwarranted specificity and bureaucracy, so I'm voting against.

[The Valencian Federation]

I am also against this. The resolution itself is alright in its idea but the necessity of an international review board seems like a huge bureaucratic mess for something that might occur on a handful of cases in a year.

[Marxist Germany]

My opinion from this post: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=472077&start=50

Written from the perspective of an IC ambassador.
"fellow ambassadors, we must not vote based on the title since this is noncompliance with existing international resolution, those of you who have read the actual proposal may have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous, handing over the responsibility of creating regulations to the WACC will diminish the purpose of this assembly, which is to create the regulations themselves. The other problem is the delegation of determining the necessity of the sterilisation to an Institutional review Board, which is ludicrous and unnecessary as doctors can do that themselves, and nothing stops IRBs from being corrupted by governments. I also dislike the use of "etc" in the title as it is inappropriate in titles. I would advise everyone here to vote AGAINST."

[Shy Guy]

Why does IA always have to try and write these "simple" proposals? They are always really bad. Strongly against.