[In queue] Proper Hygiene For Medical Instruments

[Bormiar]

The General Assembly

Proper Hygiene For Medical Instruments

Health

Area of Effect: Healthcare

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Proposed by Morover

The World Assembly,

Noting that certain medical instruments require proper sterilisation in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease,

hereby,

1. Defines "susceptible medical instrument" (SMI) as an apparatus used in a healthcare setting and with a material potential to carry and spread communicable disease to an individual;
2. Tasks the Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center (EPARC) with creating and keeping up-to-date safe and effective standards of
   
   1. sterilization and disposal of each type of SMI;
   2. determining the amount of reuse each type of SMI may undergo before disposal is needed;
   3. determining the amount of reuse each type SMI may undergo before sterilization is needed;
3. Requires sterilization, disposal, or both to be done once needed in accordance with EPARC standards whenever SMIs are used in a healthcare setting;
4. Urges medical practitioners to use their best judgment, informed by EPARC protocols, to prevent the spread of disease via SMIs without specific standards established by EPARC;
5. Demands all SMIs which do not presently have up-to-date standards established by EPARC to be reported immediately to the committee so that standards can be established or updated in a timely manner; and
6. Mandates that all individuals working in healthcare with an SMI of any kind be adequately trained to carry out the standards established by EPARC for the kind of SMI which they use and continue to receive training to maintain competency as to the latest standards.

Co-Authored by Imperium Anglorum

[Altasund]

For
I don't dare question something written by morover and IA

[JakeJack]

For. Proper medical standardization is needed to ensure that SMIs are used safely across nations to prevent possible epidemics in these nations. This will help prevent pandemics across regions or the international community as a whole.

[Bormiar]

For. A sensible replacement.

[makdon]

For, well written and useful

[Bobberino]

Against, that author is weird smh

In all seriousness for. Well written and good replacement.

[Cove]

For. Well written.

[Electrum]

For.

[Deadeye Jack]

I think I'm FOR but was there a reason that EPARC was used to oversee this? On the surface it seems like an odd choice, I hadn't noticed that's what you used for the old proposal either

[Morover]

I don't remember being pinged for this but maybe I'm just losing it.

Present, willing to answer any questions on the subject.

I think I'm FOR but was there a reason that EPARC was used to oversee this? On the surface it seems like an odd choice, I hadn't noticed that's what you used for the old proposal either

So, some people did say that it would be better to leave standards to be creating my individual member-nations as opposed to EPARC as an organization - I chose to keep it as EPARC creating the standards because it makes it much easier for medical staff to be able to carry out operations n different member-states.

More importantly, though, is the fact that delegating the task to a specific committee makes poor standards incredibly difficult to defend while remaining in good faith - if it was left up to a member-nation, ignorance to proper medical techniques could technically be used to defend their actions, whereas if EPARC (which is presumed to be staffed with incorruptible gnomes) creates them and merely requires member-states to follow those standards, it becomes near-impossible to feign that ignorance and enforce noncompliance.

While I normally try to avoid committees if unnecessary, I think efforts to enforce compliance are convincing enough to use a committee in this instance.

[Bormiar]

Pros and Cons: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1386706

[Warzone Codger]

FOR