GA Proposal:Ban On The Administration Of Unwanted Substances

[Grea Kriopia]

Ban On The Administrations of Unwanted Substances

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation

Area of Effect: Safety

Proposed by: Morover

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of every sapient individual to have full bodily autonomy,

Knowing that the involuntary administration of certain drugs, medications, or other substances, can infringe on this right to bodily autonomy,

Wishing to regulate the involuntary administration of these substances so as to prevent a severe violation of natural sapient rights,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an "undesirable substance" as any drug, medication, or other substance, whose primary intent in administration can be reasonably assumed to not be desired by the individual to whom it is being administered;

2. Subject to other World Assembly Legislation, bans the administration of undesirable substances to any sapient individual of legal competence who has not freely consented to the administration, except in the following circumstances:

a. the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others, and must be sedated;

b. the individual is undergoing a medical procedure and needs to receive emergency medications, where consent is not able to be received;

c. the undesirable substance is being administered as capital punishment, lethal, non-painful doses must be administered in order to induce a humane death;

d. substances deemed necessary for the widespread public health of either the nation or the world at large must be administered, even if there are skeptics who are vocally opposed to such substances being administered;

Clarifies that, even under these exceptions, adverse effects that are not deemed necessary shall be minimized to the greatest extent which is possible.


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

[Hakketomat]

There is a loophole in 2a of that proposal... It only allows for administration of undesirable substances if the individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others and must be sedated.
Due to this wording, the criteria for exemption listed in 2a are 1) if individual poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others and 2) the individual must be sedated.

So what you're getting is that if a person poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others AND must be sedated, then one can administer undesirable substances. Nowhere does it suggest what kind of undesirable substances may be administered. Just as long as the criteria are filled, then it's ok to administer whatever.

The wording should rather have been something along the lines of "for the purpose of sedating an individual who poses a reasonable threat to themselves or others"

This loophole is also seen in some of the other subparagraphs.

[Jabberwocky]

Far too vague to be useful. Against

[Deleted]

I'm still not all that happy with this, and I'm with Hakke on 2a. Define 'reasonable threat'? Who, exactly, gets to administer this sedation if the individual poses a reasonable threat? The neighbors? Oh wait, it doesn't say.

THX, through its WA proxy, will vote Against.

[Hakketomat]

I should add that I crossed out my argument because the ambiguity of clauses such as sub-paragraphs such as 2a is bridged by the end of paragraph 2 (..following circumstances)

However, that is my interpretation of it and others can still interpret the resolution as I initially did. The author makes reference to GAR#2 as a resolution that gives leeway for resolution authors. I disagree with that point. Maybe GAR#2 gives leeway for authors to have their resolutions approved and voted on but it does not mean that all members of WA will have to interpret the passed/proposed resolutions exactly as the author intended. In no way should any resolution, despite the notion of good faith, be interpreted in a way that gives authors any leeway to write vague resolutions without technical and solid language. A legal system would collapse if this was allowed.

Despite my concerns about this resolution being put to some rest, I will vote against. The leeway-idea must never be allowed to become a trend

[Deleted]

meh, it's all still pretty vague