European Medically Assisted Reproduction Act - 2019


  • EU

    @Sildavia
    (OOC: Basicamente, esperamos que no hagas referencia a nada de la vida real, como la equivalencia entre dias/meses/años que utilizas para que progrese el tiempo en Sildavia, ni la estructura del foro, como la famosa lista "application feed" a la que te refieres. Si te fijas, todos los posts de esa lista se hacen fuera de contexto, y no tienen nada que ver con el RP que luego se hace en el resto de entradas del foro. Creo que lo que no se quiere es que se rompa la continuidad del IC, y al mencionar esos aspectos, lo haces. También, te aconsejaría que hicieras una clara distinción entre NS y este foro, como ya he te he recomendado anteriormente. Podemos ser naciones que emanan de esa página, o que se han organizado entre sí a través de una región de NS, pero, en la práctica, hay poca vinculación entre lo que ocurre en NS y este foro. El objetivo de esta página es tomar las bases que nos da NS y desarrollar lo que queremos que sea nuestra nación a través del RP sin las limitaciones impuestas por NS. Además, si te das cuenta, no nos basamos en la existencia de un planeta en el que existan otras regiones para hacer nuestro RP. Es verdad, y esto ocurría con mas frecuencia en el pasado, que hay una categoría dedicada para los posts de miembros de otras regiones de NS en la que pueden subir contenido. Sin embargo, en los casi 3 años que llevo en European Union, nunca he visto RP que involucrase al resto de regiones de NS. Aunque es verdad que, en los útltimos tiempos, se ha querido acercar estos dos aspectos de gameplay (hay una categoría dedicada a un posible futuro consenso de la política general de European Union en temas relativos a la World Assembly, esto aún no se ha implementado, y la distinción entre los dos se sigue aplicando. Creo que, por si no lo habías hecho ya al entrar en este foro, deberías referirte a esta página para mas información: Introduction to the European Union

    Sin más, espero que esto te haya esclarecido por qué, al menos yo, pienso que no has respetado el contexto del todo.

    P.S. Sorry guys for the enormous explanation in Spanish. Although I'm basically a native English speaker, I find that I convey messages better in Spanish, also knowing that Sildavia too is Spanish-speaking.)



  • @Derecta
    First, I must correct my illustrious colleague. I’m not and never was a “conservative”, having been since my coming of age (22 years according to Sildavian laws) a member of my country’s neutral association. I was appointed as representative to the EU -and therefore a member ot its Council- by a conservative-liberal coalition government, and I’m serving now under a socialist-liberal coalition government. So much for my “conservative persuasion”.
    On the other points, you explain very well the origin of the old form my government has announced to be applied if this bill is adopted. It’s precisely in the name of democracy, the only one we know when referring to civil and political rights, the national one, that we are denouncing a limitation of those rights by a regional decision which goes too far beyond the technical cooperation which demands a union based on diversity.
    Because we respect this diversity, we have nothing against other countries’ systems, religions and laws, which we fully respect... but we demand the same respect for ours. Therefore, if Sildavia is supposed to accept the limits and mechanisms foreseen in this bill, why would other countries be able to limit its provisions, even banning medically assisted reproduction, as the bill would allow them to do? The protection of human dignity and human rights would be acceptable only for the banning, but not for a major level of freedom for researchers, medical staff and citizens?
    If you propose these limitations, then make them compulsory for all, in both senses (for better or for worst), or there is clearly a total contradiction in the arguments on which this kind of bills are supposed to be based.


  • EU

    Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia, I am sorry for having mistaken your political allegiance. It was of my understanding that you had been appointed by this Conservative-Liberal coalition you mention previously ruled your country, but I ignored the fact that you are an independent.

    You point out to the contradiction the right this proposed Act would give to countries currently banning medically assisted reproduction. I, yet again, defend former-Councillor Maverick's intention when proposing this Act and say that we do not intend to establish access to this therapy throughout the Union, but to regulate its application and prevent bioethics from being trodden upon. It is not the Union's mission to establish medically assisted reproduction in its Member States, but what indeed is is the protection of its citizens against danger and injustice

    You have repeatedly claimed there is no legitimacy to this Act. Let me show you how there is.

    Say unrestricted genetic modifying of, what according to you is not an individual, which we agree with, human zygotes and embryos not yet developing towards the fetal stage is allowed.
    Say that the development of these modified, I find it hard how to define them now, "biological entities is also allowed, and that they are implanted in a pregnant-to-be individual.
    Now say that the modification of this entity gave it additional advantages in the field of intelligence or physical capabilities than that of natural origin.
    Wouldn't you argue that the diversity of the human race would be lost? A diversity that stems from what is commonly known as "genetic roulette", alongside contingent environmental factors? In which way is the diversity of Humanity less precious than this diversity of nations you hold so dearly?

    We have already warned you, and will not take the softer stance other members of this Council have announced they'll take may this occur, but if the Empire of Sildavia has the audacity to disrespect the European Union, its laws and institutions, the Republic of Derecta will champion the fight against such blatant disregard of the rules that enable our cooperation.

    Would you approve of the establishment of internment camps assembling Sildavian citizens in my country because we inscribed a clause in our Constitution stating that they're of an inferior race that should be wiped from the face of the Earth?
    Would you approve my country's reneging of Union law that would protect your citizens from such barbary, just because we thought it didn't serve our selfish national interests?
    I deeply regret to have had to use such a deplorable example to evidentiate the illegitimacy of the Empire of Sildavia's claims of jurisdictional superiority over Union Law, but it seems that the Sildavian delegation will never be willing to admit that they have to play by the rules we all gave each other, or else fatalities such as the ones I have described could be an everyday matter.



  • @Derecta
    Apologies accepted concerning the personal matter of my political allegiance.

    Concerning the “example” you offer -about internment camps- its is absolutely ludicrous and contrary to what we are defending. We are speaking of not limiting rights and freedoms, and you answer with a limitation of rights which would be considered an act of war by each and every sovereign nation.
    Sildavia wouldn’t force Derectians to use the medically assisted pregnancy techniques, nor the biotechnological advancements offered by science, no matter if Derectians live in their country or in Sildavia. There is no compulsion on anybody, not even Sildavian citizens, to use them. The law protects the non-decisional third parties against a decision of their parents or legal caretakers (i.e., individuals under 18 years old, because between 18 and 22, minors have legal capacity to decide on medical treatments, among other points); but aside from this, there is no possibility of forcing treatments or tecniques on citizens or foreigners. It is, like all rights, a POSSIBILITY, not a necessity.
    Your words, Sir, constitute a menace and a threat against Sildavia. Do as you like. We’ll act in consequence. Sildavia began her history well before the EU was thought, and will still exist with or without the EU. NationStates is a large world.



  • @Sildavia

    I must take now leave from you all, ladies and gentlemen of this Council, as I have received a summon to leave Europolis and attend a Government Council meeting in Kronstadt. My instructions are also to close for the moment Sildavia’s office in Europolis.


  • EU

    I am saddened to hear that my, perhaps unfortunate, analogy has been interpreted by the Sildavian government as a threat. Little do they know about Derecta and Derectans, as we would never tolerate for such horrible acts to be perpetrated anywhere in the world, let alone our own soil.
    Now, we didn't mean to compare internment camps to unrestricted applying of biotech in human medicine.
    As anyone in this Chamber must already know, in an analogy, the relation between elements is what is compared, not the elements themselves. Put simply it's what A is to B and C is to D that's compared, this relation we wanted to point out being a Member State's disregard towards Union Law.
    Nevertheless, I would like to humbly apologise to the people of Sildavia, and in particular to Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia, for my poor choice of words, and the using of an example, I reiterate, may have not been worthy to be considered as part of the art of oratory.

    This is why I personally, not as the Councillor of Derecta, but as a regretful colleague, humbly ask for the Empire of Sildavia to reinstate their representation to the European Union.



  • [OOC]

    For the complete avoidance of any doubt, the entirety of this post is out-of-character. I’ll post IC later. I am speaking as myself, the man sitting behind the computer, not as Cllr Cruthin or any of my characters.

    This is the basic point of IC and OOC. There is a clear and common-sense division between the universe that our characters inhabit and the real world. Therefore, Cllr de Kronstadt-y-Setia should not be referring to RL, the application feed, the list of claims, the forums, NationStates, the concept of IC, or, for that matter, the community rules of other RP regions.

    None of those things exist within the RP universe; like the pages of a book, or the book itself, or the appendix to a book, or other books, don’t normally exist within the universe of a novel. For a character in a novel to start openly referring to “page 274” or “Appendix II” or “the laws of physics are different in Lord of the Rings” is breaking the fourth wall. And so it is with your posts, @Sildavia .

    There is always going to be some fuzziness in terms of the RP universe beyond the EU. We can and do borrow from real-world history; we acknowledge that there is a ‘rest of the world’ beyond the boundaries of the map, but for the sake of simplicity we don’t talk about it in-character other than in relatively vague terms. It’s about getting as close as we can to a fictionalised version of the real world, within the limitations inherent to a NationStates-based community.

    What is specifically stated in the Introduction thread to which Derecta linked, however, is which threads and forums are IC and which are OOC, how a post in an IC thread can be identified as OOC, and that “RP takes place in an alternate, modern-tech universe with the same physics and technologies as the real life (RL) world, but a different map”.

    I’ve been prepared to turn a blind eye to your unique calendar, since I appreciate the amount of effort you’ve put into RPing your nation in different regions and on your own website, over what must be well over a decade now. However, I think you’d do well to reciprocate by being a little more forgiving, in both your IC and OOC posts, of players who lose track of your near-constant character changes. For that matter, I'd appreciate not being chased up for an explanation of my post so brusquely and in such short order.

    And moreover, my willingness to overlook breaches of the rules set out in the Introduction thread (which I think is adequately signposted) does not extend much further than that. I’ll continue to turn a blind eye to the calendar, but I’m not going to take the flagrant disregard for the concept of IC and OOC that I’ve seen in this thread. Cllr de Kronstadt-y-Setia is not aware that he’s a character in an online forum RP based on a game called NationStates.

    We all have our own idea of what our nations and our characters should be like, but we have to compromise that for the wider RP community to function. I value your participation in the EU, and given that your idea of Sildavia is a lot more time and effort in the making than a new RPer who has decided they want sapient dragons and a population of 4.7 billion or whatever, I’m more than happy to come to a compromise/fudge that allows you to retain things like your unique calendar, and for the rest of us to skirt around those anomalies in a way that allows us not to deal with the fact that they’re anomalies. The question is whether you’re willing to do that too.



  • All comments uttered in this Council chamber since my second address are struck from the Council record. I remind Councillors to keep their discussions to matters that are relevanat to this Act.

    I am pre-emptively extending the debate period for a full 72 hours, up until 23:00 GMT July 22nd, 2019.

    ((OOC: This OOC message will be the last OOC comment in this thread. I will not hesitate to delete any new comment that is made out of character. Angleter has explained the difference between OOC and IC in clear detail, which is much apprecaited. Let's keep the debate moving forward, thanks. Xoxo))


  • EU

    I'm very pleased to see the act return in a new form with improvements suggested by various Councillors included. This is the kind of legislative work Europe needs, active not stagnant. This act will have the vote of the Archrepublic, however I wish to proposed three compromise amendments.

    AMENDMENT I: Subclause III.6
    Only establishments that are specifically authorised to do so may store and import gametes or gonadal tissue. Establishments that store donated gametes or gonadal tissue shall ensure that information on the identity of gametes or gonadal tissue donors is registered and reported to a donor register. Gametes and gonadal tissue shall not be provided for medically assisted reproduction procedures after the death of the donor. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the donor. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

    AMENDMENT II: Subclause III.12
    Only establishments that are authorised pursuant to section III.33 to carry out medically assisted reproduction techniques may after authorisation store unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue. Unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue may only be stored if the conditions relating to medically assisted reproduction set out in this Act have been fulfilled or if an individual is to undergo treatment that may impair their fertility. Stored unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue may only be kept for as long as the interests of the individual from whom they were taken so dictate and it is considered medically justifiable. Stored unfertilised eggs and ovarian tissue shall be destroyed if said individual dies. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the said individual. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

    The Archrepublic views these amendments as necessary as to allow for partners who wish to have children together still even after the death of one. There are ethical and moral reasonings as to why this should not be allowed, however these vary greatly among the various member states of the European Union. This amendment allows for oversight and the option at least for there to be interventions when deemed necessary. I give the example of recently a Vayinaodic woman who had children with her then deceased husband via medically assisted reproduction and the preservation of his sperm. Oversight is totally necessary to prevent abuse, but whether this act should be allowed should be up to each member state with the EBAB providing regulatory assistance.

    Another amendment which I am still mulling over is Subclause III.13, as part of me wishes to strike the act and other part wishes to amend it to be more clear on banning Gainful Surrogacy while still leaving altruistic surrogacy untouched for member states to rule upon. I would like to hear the opinion of other Councillors before I propose such an amendment since I know there was support to strike it previously.



  • I suspect that not everyone who would like to contribute to this Act has had the chance to lay out all their ideas yet, or had proper time to discuss the latest proposed amendments. Thus, I am again extending the debate another 72 hours up until 23:00 GMT July 25th, 2019.

    Edward Firoux
    Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista


  • EU

    We welcome your amendments, Councillor Falk. I believe that they have helped broaden the reach of an otherwise categorical banning of the use of gametes or gonadal tissue from a deceased person for medically assisted reproduction.

    However, and as former Councillor Maverick explained to Councillor Rodríguez, the intention of this proposed Act is not to regulate the commercial aspects of medically assisted reproduction but to avoid the bio-ethical concerns these practices may surface.

    The same way my predecessor could not condone Councillor Rodríguez's call for a "common front" on the sharing of information pertaining to medically assisted reproduction between Member States, I myself cannot approve of an amendment being submitted with the objective to outlaw Gainful Surrogacy.

    Whether there is a transactional basis to surrogacy or not is beyond the scope and intention of this Act. there is one variant of Gainful Surrogacy we believe should be, if not banned, at least discouraged, which is why we worded section III.13 as is.

    Some professionals refer to the resorting to surrogacy by women that want to become mothers but do not want to go through the "inconveniences" a pregnancy entails as "social surrogacy" or "designer surrogacy". We know for a fact that, due to socio-economical or professional factors, some women believe that they can't risk getting pregnant, either because that will affect their careers or because, sorry to put it so frivolously, their body shape will be deeply altered to the point they will "no longer be attractive".

    To this I say, isn't it a fact that the very existence of this kind of surrogacy does nothing but perpetuate the sexist grounds on which it lays its foundations?

    This practice exploits both legal and moral loopholes currently undercutting our efforts to maintain surrogacy in particular as an ethical path towards parenthood.

    But, again, I shall not approve the banning of gainful surrogacy. I believe that it would be in the best interest both of the Union and the Councillors that want to see this proposed Act prosper not to sanction the outlawing of an entire market Union-wide, and that here, national prerogative should be applied.

    Thus, we propose the striking of section III.13.

    May we only clarify that, at the present time, the donation of gamete producing organs and tissue from one individual to another without there being a genetic link between them is currently clinically impossible, thus why we proposed the banning of such transplantations in the same section.



  • The debate has ended. Voting on amendments has begun. Voting on amendments will continueuntil 01:30 GMT July 28th, 2019.

    There are THREE proposed amendments. The amendments are as followed:

    AMENDMENT I: Subclause III.6
    Only establishments that are specifically authorised to do so may store and import gametes or gonadal tissue. Establishments that store donated gametes or gonadal tissue shall ensure that information on the identity of gametes or gonadal tissue donors is registered and reported to a donor register. Gametes and gonadal tissue shall not be provided for medically assisted reproduction procedures after the death of the donor. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the donor. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

    AMENDMENT II: Subclause III.12
    Only establishments that are authorised pursuant to section III.33 to carry out medically assisted reproduction techniques may after authorisation store unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue. Unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue may only be stored if the conditions relating to medically assisted reproduction set out in this Act have been fulfilled or if an individual is to undergo treatment that may impair their fertility. Stored unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue may only be kept for as long as the interests of the individual from whom they were taken so dictate. Stored unfertilised eggs and ovarian tissue shall be destroyed if said individual dies. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the said individual. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

    Amendment III:
    13.PROHIBITION AGAINST EGG DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION OF GAMETE-PRODUCING ORGANS
    The donation of oocytes or parts of oocytes by one individual to another is to be the last resort when performing medically assisted reproduction. The transplantation of gamete-producing organs and tissue from one individual to another for the purpose of treating infertility is prohibited.


  • EU

    We request that our proposal to strike section III.13 also be subject to voting.


  • EU

    We vote FOR all amendments.

    HE Guillermo de Berlanga y Prieto
    Councillor of the Republic of Derecta


  • EU

    On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR all the proposed amendments.



  • I am extending the amendment voting period for 24 hours, until 01:30 GMT July 29th, 2019.

    On behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote FOR all amendments.

    Edward Firoux
    Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista



  • On behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, I, Cllr Hrayr Cruthin, vote FOR all three amendments.



  • Voting on amendments has concluded. All three amendments have PASSED.

    Voting on the final version of this Act has now begun and will conclude on 05:00 GMT August 1st, 2019.

    On behalf of the Microstate of Inquista, I vote FOR this Act.

    Edward Firoux
    Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista



  • On behalf of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, I, Cllr Hrayr Cruthin, vote FOR this Act.


  • EU

    On behalf of the Republic of Derecta, I vote FOR this Act.

    HE Guillermo de Berlanga y Prieto
    Councillor of the Republic of Derecta


Log in to reply