Post by Asairia on Jan 25, 2019 17:08:25 GMT
WORLD ASSEMBLY SECURITY COUNCIL
FREEDOM TO SEEK MEDICAL CARE II
DELEGATE IS VOTING: AGAINST ☒
FINAL RESULTS:
8,071 (50.9%) FOR
7,772 (49.1%) AGAINST
Overview
Freedom to Seek Medical Care II seeks to, "[Prohibit] member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from traveling to obtain medically necessary healthcare in foreign nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly, while allowing member nations to prohibit travel to nations involved in active armed conflict with the member nation."
Author's Justification
The author of this resolution, New Waldensia of the Federation of Conservative Nations, originally drafted this proposal in November of 2017, but has only recently submitted it for formal consideration. This resolution, if enacted, will do the following:
1. Prohibit member nations from denying or restricting their citizens or permanent residents from traveling to obtain medically necessary healthcare in foreign nations at their own expense, subject to any restrictions previously imposed by the General Assembly, while allowing member nations to prohibit travel to nations involved in active armed conflict with the member nation;
2. Affirm the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the in-bound travel of non-residents so long as such ordinances are in accordance with previously passed General Assembly legislation, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly;
3. Require that member nations respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives;
4. Prohibit member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated;
5. Declare that patients seeking medical care or treatment under this act are financially responsible for any costs not compensated by existing laws in their home nation, and that such travel and payment must be arranged by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation;
6. State that member nations are not obligated to cover future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure;
7. Note that member nations are not prohibited from assisting in defraying the financial cost associated with citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care under this measure.
2. Affirm the ability of member nations to set their own policies and restrictions regarding the in-bound travel of non-residents so long as such ordinances are in accordance with previously passed General Assembly legislation, and further declares that no member nation is required by this measure to provide medical care to non-resident medical patients above any requirements previously imposed by the General Assembly;
3. Require that member nations respect the rights of all patients and their legal representatives;
4. Prohibit member nations from taking legal action against citizens or permanent residents who seek medical treatments or operations abroad, as long as General Assembly resolutions have not been violated;
5. Declare that patients seeking medical care or treatment under this act are financially responsible for any costs not compensated by existing laws in their home nation, and that such travel and payment must be arranged by the person(s) seeking treatment, or by their legal guardians or representation;
6. State that member nations are not obligated to cover future medical costs for conditions that arise after and directly result from medical treatments or operations sought at private expense by the patient under this measure;
7. Note that member nations are not prohibited from assisting in defraying the financial cost associated with citizens or permanent residents seeking medical care under this measure.
My Decision
Some of the principles behind this resolution are well-intended; however, there are a few critical issues that were not addressed despite being brought up multiple times over multiple years.
The phrase 'medically necessary healthcare' is not defined and is therefore subject to interpretation.
Not defining a crucial term or phrase in a resolution is a terrible way to write one because it doesn't provide a clear base to expand from.
This resolution only allows member nations to prohibit travel to nations they are 'actively involved in armed conflict' with.
While this exception is good, it dramatically oversimplifies foreign relations. If adopted, member nations will no longer be permitted to protect their citizens and permanent residents from travelling to dangerous nations that: are in a civil war, in a state of chaos, pose great threat of bodily harm, in a state of cold war, quarantined by the international community for widespread outbreaks, and more if treatment there is requested.
On the topic of quarantines, this resolution doesn't address them adequately enough.
When asked about whether or not quarantines are permitted as a reason to deny travel, one of the General Secretariats stated that GAR#389 was still in force; however, the Rights of the Quarantined resolution does not explicitly permit nations to ban travel because it requires governments to, "Provide every treatment to all infected persons ... while taking any available precaution to ensure that the people administering these treatments are not infected." As long as the people treating the patient are protected, travel is permitted, putting others at risk of contracting and spreading something deadly. If quarantines were given an exemption clause similar to the state of war clause, this problem would have been easily resolved.
Finally, this resolution seeks to protect the health and well-being of individuals, but fails to do so by denying member nations the right to set safety and quality requirements for medical treatment.
Freedom to Seek Medical Care II lacks oversight designed to protect individuals seeking medical care in other nations and denies governments the right to create said oversight. As it currently reads, this resolution allows and encourages individuals (especially the poor) to seek cheaper and likely worse quality treatment in other nations, leaving them open to terrible post-operation consequences such as infections due to unclean equipment and even grey or black market organs and resources. As a nation, it is our job to ensure the health, well-being, and comfort of our people, and this resolution strips us of our ability to do that just because someone says they believe it is worth the risk.
To summarize, I believe individuals should be given the option to seek medical treatment elsewhere, especially if the nation they reside in lacks the capability to treat them while other nations have the means to do so. However, this does not mean that we should compromise our responsibility to ensure the treatment our people seek is sufficiently safe and adequate, and the 'bare-minimum' language included in Clause 2 of this resolution does not reassure me.
Until these concerns are finally addressed, I have cast my vote against this resolution as it will put more people at risk than it will help.
Current Regional support at time of publication.
Current Delegate support at time of publication.