Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kubrikistan

Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"

Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. How shall the WAD vote?

    • For the repeal
      6
    • Against the repeal
      0
    • He shall abstain
      1


Recommended Posts

Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#171 Proposed by: Christian Democracts


Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #171: Freedom in Medical Research (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

Realizing that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, says the following,

  • "Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be penalized by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless fully informed consent was not acquired,"

Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he suffers at the hands of a physician, even if that patient did provide informed consent to the procedure that harmed him,

Opining that consent to a controversial procedure is not necessarily consent to every potential loss or injury that might result therefrom,

Suggesting that physicians who perform "controversial forms of treatment" and want to avoid lawsuits require the persons whom they are treating to sign contracts waiving the right to sue (see Resolution 205, Freedom to Contract) instead of relying on this Assembly to protect them from their own negligence or incompetence when they harm their patients,

Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are performed by charlatans and that are likely to cause severe harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families,

Noting that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, also says the following,

  • "Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in,"

Understanding that it is often impossible to fit an entire list of the ingredients and potential side effects of a drug on the label of the vessel and that it is more reasonable for the drug and its container to be accompanied by a separate pamphlet or booklet that contains a full list of ingredients and potential side effects in a font size that is large enough to read,

Worried, therefore, that the requirement that all side effects and ingredients be printed on the vessel is unreasonable,

Holding the position that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, is flawed for the aforementioned reasons,

Clarifying that the passage of this repeal does not prevent member states from enacting and enforcing their own laws to provide legal protection or immunity to physicians who offer and provide controversial or experimental forms of medical treatment,

Repeals Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, thus rendering it null and void.


Votes For: 3,816 (70%)

Votes Against: 1,619 (30%)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 5 hours

---

Debate at the General Assembly forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For. This is one of the best-written WA resolutions I've ever seen! And the purpose is good yeah whatever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he suffers at the hands of a physician, even if that patient did provide informed consent to the procedure that harmed him,

Opining that consent to a controversial procedure is not necessarily consent to every potential loss or injury that might result therefrom,

Suggesting that physicians who perform "controversial forms of treatment" and want to avoid lawsuits require the persons whom they are treating to sign contracts waiving the right to sue (see Resolution 205, Freedom to Contract) instead of relying on this Assembly to protect them from their own negligence or incompetence when they harm their patients,

In the legal sense, "informed consent" includes consent to every potential loss or injury, in fact, it is the whole point. Every patient has the right to refuse such a treatment. And even with the resolution in effect, patients do have the right to sue if they were not sufficiently informed.

In Germany, the Civil Code and the Patient Rights and Informed Consent Act strictly prohibit unlimited liability waivers between doctors and patients, and for good reasons. This repeal might actually worsen the protection of patient rights, because every doctor could make them sign such a waiver before even looking at them.

I agree to the concerns about information regarding side effects, but I'd like to note that again, in Germany, every drug is already accompanied by such a booklet since 1971 and they didn't prove successful. In fact, a list of every possible side effect or adversary condition, without exceptions, serves only to scare patients away from taking the drugs.

Of course, the resolution is not perfect, but I don't see that a repeal would improve anything. But since the individual member states are free to enact their own laws on medical liability either way, I abstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×