NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, your support is appreciated.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark
---
Description: The over-use of antibiotics is leading to massively increased incidence of antibiotic-resistant strains of dangerous bacteria. This is an issue of international concern: If an antibiotic-resistant strain develops in one nation, it can quickly spread to the nation's neighbors and the entire world.

While there are many areas where antibiotics are being over-used, arguably the most serious is in agriculture. Antibiotics whose proper use is the treatment of dangerous diseases are being used to speed livestock growth.

This resolution bans the use of antibiotics on livestock except in three specific cases:

1. To treat an existing disease diagnosed by a veterinarian
2. As prophylaxis when an animal has been exposed to a disease, as verified by a veterinarian
3. As prophylaxis when there is a currently active epidemic in an animal population, as verified by the nation's agricultural authorities

I'll suggest our delegate support this. It is not too intrusive into sovereignty issues, and involves a genuine issue of worls health and a reasonable appraoch to a solution.

Thank you for your support, Collaboration.

I have a better idea--let's NOT restrict what people do with the animals they own.

Ithuania, we are unsurprised by your reaction. This proposal is aimed at the (vast majority of) nations that are not run by rabid property-rights absolutists.

We in Gurthark, and, we think, most people in the world, believe that your right to do whatever you want with your property ends at the point where you are directly harming others. Overusing antibiotics on *your* animals may make *me* die when I get sick. I know, they're your animals, but it's my life.

You might as well oppose resolutions outlawing murder on the grounds that it's a better idea "NOT [to] restrict what people do with the weapons they own."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Ithuania, we are unsurprised by your reaction. This proposal is aimed at the (vast majority of) nations that are not run by rabid property-rights absolutists.

We in Gurthark, and, we think, most people in the world, believe that your right to do whatever you want with your property ends at the point where you are directly harming others.
Actually, it is I who believe that, not you.
Overusing antibiotics on *your* animals may make *me* die when I get sick. I know, they're your animals, but it's my life.
That implies that you have a RIGHT to access useful medications. You don't. If you can get them, more power to you--but no one has an obligation to ensure that they're avaible.

We in Gurthark, and, we think, most people in the world, believe that your right to do whatever you want with your property ends at the point where you are directly harming others.
Actually, it is I who believe that, not you.


To be strictly accurate about our own beliefs, I should have said, "ends--at the latest--at the point where you are directly harming others." But as regards this proposal, it's not a difference that makes a difference; using antibiotics as growth promoters *does* directly harm other people.


Overusing antibiotics on *your* animals may make *me* die when I get sick. I know, they're your animals, but it's my life.
That implies that you have a RIGHT to access useful medications. You don't. If you can get them, more power to you--but no one has an obligation to ensure that they're avaible.

An analogy: Suppose I detonate a massive chemical weapon over the city in which you live. You protest, "but you are making me sick--indeed, you are killing me. You don't have the right to do that, even with your chemical bomb." I reply, "That implies that you have a RIGHT to access breathable air. You don't. If you can get it, more power to you--but no one has an obligation to ensure that it's available."

Overusing antibiotics on a large scale is the equivalent of dropping a bomb into the pool of usable antibiotics. This resolution doesn't ask nations to give out free antibiotics; it simply asks them not to damage the efficacy of the pool of antibiotics we already have. Similarly, though you might not expect me to ship clean air into your cities for you to breathe, you might at least expect me to not release nerve gas into them.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We in Gurthark, and, we think, most people in the world, believe that your right to do whatever you want with your property ends at the point where you are directly harming others.
Actually, it is I who believe that, not you.


To be strictly accurate about our own beliefs, I should have said, "ends--at the latest--at the point where you are directly harming others." But as regards this proposal, it's not a difference that makes a difference; using antibiotics as growth promoters *does* directly harm other people.
No, it doesn't. It may possibly cause harm to others, but that depends on the right random mutations happening in the right place at the right time. It does not inherently pose a direct threat to any other human being.


Overusing antibiotics on *your* animals may make *me* die when I get sick. I know, they're your animals, but it's my life.
That implies that you have a RIGHT to access useful medications. You don't. If you can get them, more power to you--but no one has an obligation to ensure that they're avaible.

An analogy: Suppose I detonate a massive chemical weapon over the city in which you live. You protest, "but you are making me sick--indeed, you are killing me. You don't have the right to do that, even with your chemical bomb." I reply, "That implies that you have a RIGHT to access breathable air. You don't. If you can get it, more power to you--but no one has an obligation to ensure that it's available."
There's a difference. Medicines must be produced and provided by someone. The same isn't true for air...it's simply there, courtesy of nature.

using antibiotics as growth promoters *does* directly harm other people.
No, it doesn't. It may possibly cause harm to others, but that depends on the right random mutations happening in the right place at the right time. It does not inherently pose a direct threat to any other human being.


It is virtually a statistical certainty that, with long-term, widespread antibiotic use, resistent strains will arise in the relatively short-term. There is ample historical evidence demonstrating this. Firing an automatic weapon into the stands at a crowded stadium requires some random events in order to hurt anyone, but it should still count as "direct harm."


An analogy: Suppose I detonate a massive chemical weapon over the city in which you live. You protest, "but you are making me sick--indeed, you are killing me. You don't have the right to do that, even with your chemical bomb." I reply, "That implies that you have a RIGHT to access breathable air. You don't. If you can get it, more power to you--but no one has an obligation to ensure that it's available."
There's a difference. Medicines must be produced and provided by someone. The same isn't true for air...it's simply there, courtesy of nature.

Medicines must indeed have been created and provided by someone at some time in the past. But if I have already procured (or created) a stock of antibiotics, and you take actions that destroy the efficacy of that stock, the analogy certainly holds.

Personally, we in Gurthark do not believe this is relevant--we think that lines of effective antibiotics are, in part, a common good. But even people who do not believe this should still support the resolution, since it protects those who actually *own* antibiotics they intend to use to protect themselves from disease.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

This is simply unnecesary because the bacteria that they are fighting are just continually becoming immune to the antibios so i say have a more controlled flow of them but restriction is too much hastle.

This is simply unnecesary because the bacteria that they are fighting are just continually becoming immune to the antibios so i say have a more controlled flow of them but restriction is too much hastle.

Barrianinium , how is this to be done? Indeed, it is impossible to completely pevent the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, but it is at least vital that we slow it down to the point that medical research can stay a number of steps ahead of bacterial evolution (right now, the bacteria seem to be catching up to us at an alarming rate).

To slow down the rate of resistance development, we need to be using less antibiotics, which requires that we eliminate unnecessary uses. The most obvious and common unnecessary use of antibiotics today is as growth-enhancers for livestock; eliminating this use seems like the *least* amount of regulatory hassle for the amount of reduction in use it would provide.

If you can suggest ways to reduce antibiotic use that 1) are less regulatory hassle than this proposal, 2) would reduce use as much as this proposal, and 3) would not prevent people who actually *need* antibiotics from getting them, we'd love to hear them.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I back Gurthark absolutely on this one. People shouldn't be allowed to sabotage life-saving medicines just to make a few bucks. It's as simple as that.

The Federation of Omnifiend opposes this proposal, and I will make a note of this to my regional delegate.
By stemming the use of antibiotics, aren't you technically only increasing the severity of a sickness by the increased numbers of infections?
I say use the antibiotics to the point of total mutation. Can we not come up with a way to kill off bacteria in some other manner once the bacteria have become resistant?
Come up with a different antibiotic. If any livestock survive the mutated infection, we can then use that animal to create something to destroy the current infection.
With advances in genetic engineering, all we have to do is find an appropriate virus and splice some DNA in that will cause the bacterial cell to lyse. Then inject the bacteria into the infected animal. I am sure it is more complicated then what I just presented, but don't stem the flow of antibiotics.
I will attempt an analogy.
When OPEC cut production of oil, Nixon put price controls on oil. When the market is allowed to function correctly, we would have been off of oil a long time ago because people would not have accepted the high price of oil. Because the price controls were implemented, prices were not allowed to rise to the point of complete change. If we enact 'price controls' (stemming the use of antibiotics), then the immune systems of livestock and the ingenuity of humans to create antibiotics will be attenuated.

-Zerro
Most Exalted Corporate Leader of the Federation of Omnifiend

The Federation of Omnifiend opposes this proposal, and I will make a note of this to my regional delegate.
By stemming the use of antibiotics, aren't you technically only increasing the severity of a sickness by the increased numbers of infections?

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your argument here, because I don't think I understand it. However, I'll do my best.

We are not prohibiting any reasonable use of antibiotics as treatment or prophylaxis for infections. There is no obvious reason why infection rates in livestock will increase substantially with this porposal.

The proposal is intended to stem the use of antibiotics that are being used as *growth enhancers*, not treatments or preventatives for diseases. Our scientist general, Dr. Gronk van der Hoek, explains it this way:

"All mammals contain natural bacteria that live in their digestive system. These bacteria provide many benefits to the animal, such as helping the animal to absorb various vitamins and minerals essential to its health. However, the self-same bacteria do absorb some calories from the animal's diet.

"When antibiotics are used as growth enhancers, the idea is not to kill off harmful bacteria, but rather to kill the beneficial bacteria that live in the animals' digestive tracts. This is not good for the animal in any normal sense--in fact, it reduces the animal's life expectancy significantly. It is also possible, though evidence is inconclusive, that the animal's meat becomes less nutritious than it might otherwise be.

"However, since the bacteria are no longer able to absorb calories from the animal's diet, the animal becomes larger and meatier than it might otherwise be. There can be some economic incentive for this, since meat is usually sold by the pound, and secondarily for its esthetic qualities, but rarely for its specific nutritional content.

"The antibiotics are usually administered in fairly low doses, because that is sufficient for the purpose of growth enhancement, and high doses would become prohibitively expensive if administered that continuously. However, this creates its own problem: Much like what happens when a patient takes some of their antibiotics but less than their doctors prescribe, any pathogenic organisms lurking about are partially--but not completely--killed off, with strong selective preference being given to more resistant organisms. Over time, this creates an evolutionary situation where completely resistant organisms evolve."


I say use the antibiotics to the point of total mutation. Can we not come up with a way to kill off bacteria in some other manner once the bacteria have become resistant?
Come up with a different antibiotic. If any livestock survive the mutated infection, we can then use that animal to create something to destroy the current infection.

This is precisely why global disaster has been averted so far: We have been able to keep one step ahead of antibiotic resistance, and have been able to come up with new antibiotics (often using survivors as models, just as you suggest) in time to prevent massive loss in human life from resistant bacteria that make the leap to humans.

But you seem to be suggesting that development of new antibiotics is a snap, something that can be expected to proceed indefinitely and regularly. This is not the case. New antibiotics take, on average, five years to develop, and the time is increasing, not decreasing, as we exhaust minor variations upon antibiotics found in nature and have to become more and more ingenious in our hunt.

This is not a sustainable situation.

With advances in genetic engineering, all we have to do is find an appropriate virus and splice some DNA in that will cause the bacterial cell to lyse. Then inject the bacteria into the infected animal. I am sure it is more complicated then what I just presented, but don't stem the flow of antibiotics.

Far, far more complicated. You seem to be suggesting that the development of new drugs is something a sophomore biology major can do in their off hours in the lab. New drugs are incredibly costly and time-consuming to develop; moreover, they require flashes of insight of the sort it's dangerous to rely on as a matter of course.

I will attempt an analogy.
When OPEC cut production of oil, Nixon put price controls on oil. When the market is allowed to function correctly, we would have been off of oil a long time ago because people would not have accepted the high price of oil. Because the price controls were implemented, prices were not allowed to rise to the point of complete change. If we enact 'price controls' (stemming the use of antibiotics), then the immune systems of livestock and the ingenuity of humans to create antibiotics will be attenuated.

This seems to be based on the idea that this proposal attempts to cut out *reasonable* uses of antibiotics. We will still have plenty of need to create new ones based on the--inevitable, but somewhat more gradual--resistance bacteria develop in response to even the most responsible uses of drugs.

The analogy also breaks down when you consider the relative importance of what is being discussed. A short-term massive increase in the price of oil, before a country could wean itself off of it, could indeed spell ecoomc disaster, but it would be reperable economic disaster. A single invasive organism that we had no means of treating could, in a matter of a few short years, wipe out a substantial portion of the world's population. Even a devastating modern epidemic like AIDS pales in comparison to some of the bacterial epidemics (plague comes to mind) of the past. Our current practices in agricultural antibiotic use are inviting disaster of plague-like proportions.

A better analogy might have be the rationing of certain materials during wartime. For example, in days where military electronics were first becoming important, but personal electronics were still rare, countries introduced copper rationing. There were still acceptable uses of copper, such as in power cords, where really nothing else would do. But these governments felt it foolish to make coins from the metal, which was most properly used to save soldiers' lives on the battlefield.

Our repository of antibiotics is--like copper in wartime--a scarce resource that we need for preventing suffering and saving lives (and, perhaps, preventing economic disaster by treating animals--that is why the proposal has the three exemptions), rather than making our chickens grow an extra 5% larger.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

*applauds*

this resoloution will not only help prevent resistance to antipiotics, it will put the trout fishing industry in Sal-Sana on an upturn.

The Most Holy Republic of Eredron wishes to add it's support to the proposal brought forth by the esteemed Community of Gurthark.

THank you, Sal-Sana and Eredron, for your support.

Unfortunately, this proposal looks, for a second time, like it is unlikely to reach delegate quorum in time to pass. We in Gurthark have sadly lost our ability to submit United Naitons proposals (one of our two endorsers departed Utopia for another region), so until such time as we are able to regain the level of support necessary to resubmit, I am afraid the situation will not change.

Regretfully,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Shew, that's a relief, because there's no valid reason to tell people what they can or cannot put in the animals they own.

Shew, that's a relief, because there's no valid reason to tell people what they can or cannot put in the animals they own.

Which explains perfectly why you got PWNed in a debate about it. :roll:

No, I didn't.

i will temporarily move to your region and add my endorsement! for the good of the world!

You mean for the spread of true evil.

or that, yes.

it has been done! the endorsement has been completed. now we can continue with our campaign to aid the poor fishfa-err... subjects of disease spread by immunity to antibiotics.

Delegates, your support is appreciated.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark
---
Description: The over-use of antibiotics is leading to massively increased incidence of antibiotic-resistant strains of dangerous bacteria. This is an issue of international concern: If an antibiotic-resistant strain develops in one nation, it can quickly spread to the nation's neighbors and the entire world.

While there are many areas where antibiotics are being over-used, arguably the most serious is in agriculture. Antibiotics whose proper use is the treatment of dangerous diseases are being used to speed livestock growth.

This resolution bans the use of antibiotics on livestock except in three specific cases:

1. To treat an existing disease diagnosed by a veterinarian
2. As prophylaxis when an animal has been exposed to a disease, as verified by a veterinarian
3. As prophylaxis when there is a currently active epidemic in an animal population, as verified by the nation's agricultural authorities


A very reasonable proposal!

The proposal is intended to stem the use of antibiotics that are being used as *growth enhancers*, not treatments or preventatives for diseases.


If such was stated in the proposal, then I would have taken a different tack. Your intentions are good, but from what I gather, the plan would make the livestock inefficient. Inefficient in the manner that one would get less "beef"(or what ever you are deriving from the animal) from one animal(Heretofore known for the sake of arguement as 'cow').
To compensate, more cows would have to be produced to make up for the inefficiencies created by the removal of growth hormones. IF a disease comes about, wouldn't more of the livestock by destroyed and more of a disease fighting antibiotic have to used, furthering the risk of mutation? Using the principle of the gas example, maybe the increase of the price of cow would force the market away from cow.

If I comprehend this correctly, you are trying to prevent the mutation of non-pathogenic bacteria.
I propose you add an amendment or two to the proposal. First, make the purpose of the resolution clearer by stating what is quoted at the top. Then propose studies be done on an antibiotic by antibiotic basis of the affects of various antibiotic growth hormones on the non-pathogenic beneficial bacteria. Let us gauge the risk of mutation before messing with the cow market. Furthermore, propose some deregulation of the drug industry ( I don't feel like spelling). The FDA in the United States of America holds back many lifesaving products each year in some sick mess of paperwork. I know I want some more studies...but...Maybe I am trying to have it both ways...who knows...

Zerro, Most Exalted Corporate Leader of the Federation of Omnifiend
P.S. The more I learn...