The first argument given in the proposed repeal is that the structure of Institutional Review Boards in GA 111 'Medical Research Ethics Act' is insufficient because IRBs 'are not required to be staffed with medical experts'. This is untrue. GA 111 defines an 'Institutional Review Board (IRB) as a board of individuals qualified to impartially analyse medical research proposals'. If such boards did not have medical experts, they would be unqualified to analyse such proposals.

The author also argues that requiring permission would create delays. The need for pre-clearance is necessary: sterilisation procedures are mostly non-reversible. It would be folly to allow them without substantial oversight. This principle has been affirmed by the World Assembly not once in GA 472 (the target), but also GA 486.

The third argument is the non-delegation doctrine: that the GA 'should not pass legislation that empowers committees to create secondary legislation'. This argument is bunk. Carrying the argument into fruition, it implies that the Assembly cannot have committees create regulations on pollution, financial products, carbon emissions, etc without either doing it by itself – an impossible task when the world is complex – or delegating this authority to member nations which the GA cannot trust to carry out its mandate.

Repeal, by itself, of GA 472 would do little harm to the current regulatory regime for the sterilisation minors. But repeal for these reasons undermines the regulatory regime in resolutions using the same language as GA 472, it undermines the Assembly's ability to regulate complex activities, and misleads the public as to how GA 111 operates.

The WA Office recommends voting AGAINST Repeal 'Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc'.

Primary author(s): Imperium Anglorum.