NationStates Jolt Archive

Aegonia fully understands the good-intentions of this resolution - however, it has been entered as a proposal "to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." There is only one provision for education and the rest are all economic hand-outs. We agree with education and prevention, but do not agree to opening our coffers for drugs to those already afflicted. It is a terrible disease indeed, but incurable. We offer emotional and religious support to these people, and some minor medications, but refuse to get into debate about what "necessary drugs" are.

Please vote AGAINST this proposal. Aegonia believes in education - not handouts.

Prevention is the only cure for AIDS.

I know sorta how you feel. Squi would have to be against this proposal (if we were in the UN) becuase of the third clause. We refuse to subsidize any industry and will only tax to raise revenue, not to promote social policy.

"We share Aegonia's key concerns regarding the fact that the brunt of the resolution is not directed towards education (the only cure) but rather spending a great deal of money over... sadly people who are destined to die. Although we see the idea of a voluntary fund as a crucial ammendment, forcing every UN nation to contribute in this manner is wrong, and still it does not address the issue of education in order to get prevention, which we believe would be the only successful policy."

-Second Undersecretary of United Nations Affairs,
Foreign Ministry of Esamopia.

Gigglealia too votes against it.

What purpose does cheap HIV medication serve? It prolongs the lives of those afflicted and lets those afflicted live longer and spread it further. It doesn't cure it, it doesn't make it non-infectious, it doesn't reduce the mortality, it does nothing but prolong the pain.

There is no cure, there is only prevention. Gigglealia would much prefer to see money directed at education and education alone- there is nothing else that will help afflicted countried but prevention until there is a cure discovered, if ever.

Gigglealia however fears that the poorly educated plebian masses will vote for the proposal regardless as it's seen as 'politically correct' to give cheap HIV drugs to those afflicted. I urge such people to look at the real situation, all they're doing is prolonging the agony. Vote against the proposal, reality is more important than political correctness.

Are you going to allow semantics to stop us doing good in the world

Are you going to allow semantics to stop us doing good in the world

"Unfortunately the flaws in this resolution are more than 'semantics,' and would cause a great deal of funds to be wasted instead of being directed for providing cheap drugs for curable diseases, or in the case of AIDS, for education and prevention, the only true cure in the gruesome battle against the epidemic. We hope that a similar proposal is made in the future, one that focuses on education and prevention, and we would then surely support it all the way."

-Esamopian Ambassador to the United Nations.

What purpose does cheap HIV medication serve? It prolongs the lives of those afflicted and lets those afflicted live longer and spread it further. It doesn't cure it, it doesn't make it non-infectious, it doesn't reduce the mortality, it does nothing but prolong the pain.

Where I agree with you on the facts that you state, medication can make the lives of those who are HIV+ or have AIDS livable, seriously extend their lives. Who better to tezch people of the dangers of unprotected sex, sharing needles etc. than those who have caught this terrible disease.

Your lack of compassion is barely comprehensible. It's not a great leap from your stated position to the concept of killing anyone who has this terrible disease.

With the right combinations of medication many can live fullfilled and rewarding lives. Yes they are still contageous, yes they will in all likelyhood die of the disease, this does not mean that we should write them off.

Ben
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Are you going to allow semantics to stop us doing good in the world
OOC: That'd be too much like the real UN. :D

Your lack of compassion is barely comprehensible. It's not a great leap from your stated position to the concept of killing anyone who has this terrible disease.

With the right combinations of medication many can live fullfilled and rewarding lives. Yes they are still contageous, yes they will in all likelyhood die of the disease, this does not mean that we should write them off.

We're not saying to "write them off" at all, and it is a tremendous and terrible leap you are making to suggest "killing" them! We all whole-heartedly support the idea - just not its means.

We're merely asking to not just throw money at the problem. We ask to focus on the source of the problem and not its symptoms.

What purpose does cheap HIV medication serve? It prolongs the lives of those afflicted and lets those afflicted live longer and spread it further. It doesn't cure it, it doesn't make it non-infectious, it doesn't reduce the mortality, it does nothing but prolong the pain.

It's not a great leap from what you wrote here at all.

Ben
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Your misunderstanding of the context is noted. The "purpose" in discussion here is ridding the world of AIDS. Treatments for AIDS patients, although a wonderful thing, do not serve this purpose. We do not suggest affecting these funds or procedures at all. The discussion is that a global UN initiative should focus on prevention.

I have spoken with our surgeon general, Dr. Fiona Bixby, and she had this to say:

"This objection--that AIDS drugs for people already afflicted are useless because they do nothing to eliminate the disease and only prolong the lives of doomed people--is based on a serious misunderstanding of AIDS transmission.

"People under treatment for AIDS are *much* less likely to spread the virus. Nobody is quite sure why this is so, but the epidemiological evidence for it is staggering. A pregnant woman who is not taking AIDS medication has a 25% chance of transmitting the virus to her baby. With a regimen of just AZT, this chance reduces to 8% (source: Project Inform's Pregnancy and HIV (http://www.projinf.org/fs/mothertochild.html)). More modern AIDS drugs can reduce it even farther.

"Providing anti-AIDS drugs to infected people should be a significant part of any program to try to stop the spread of the virus. It is just as effective--indeed, probably more effective--than education."

In addition, as United Nations Ambassador, I'd like to reiterate the humanitarian reasons to support this proposal. The argument that "these people are doomed" is moot. We're all doomed, in the sense we're going to die someday. AIDS drugs can add *decades* to people's lives. While they're certainly no substitute for a means of prevention or a true cure, they can allow afflicted people to see their children grow and their dreams mature.

Sincerely,
Miranda Goolgeplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Support "Reduce Antibiotic Resistance" (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80559) for a healthier world!

the bit I object to is the idea that everyones blood will be logged and kept, if it were optional then I feel that would be better since I do not like the idea of a police state haveing too much infomation about people. If they know ourgenetic make up what else might they be able to do?? sounds too ominous to me. 8)

The HIV testing of national and international blood banks and pools be made mandatory in all member nations in order to cut down on the rate of transmission of this disease through transfusions,


That's the bit I think you're objecting to.

Where is the logging that you mention here, all that has to happen is that the blood is tested. This isn't something that requires the donor to be known, personally we feel that the donor should be informed, that is simply Nebbylands position however, you want anonymity it's still very possible.

Loadsalove
Kelly
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland (the healthiest and cleverest in Roleplay University)

Edit: we still can't spell though

I kind of like this resolution. It sounds a lot like the humanitarian efforts to distribute food to under-developed nations, already in use by the UN, except this would be with medication and education. It has my vote :)

This is why social justice proposals don't usually get up here: capitalists don't like helping people by paying back what has been taken from them.

Although well intentioned, this proposal is a waste of funds. Spending money on an AIDS total solution would be acceptable, but funding drugs that only increase time on this planet while allowing these people to continue to infect others is unacceptable.

Mr. Joseph
N.U.E. Ambassador to the UN

Although well intentioned, this proposal is a waste of funds. Spending money on an AIDS total solution would be acceptable, but funding drugs that only increase time on this planet while allowing these people to continue to infect others is unacceptable.

Mr. Joseph
N.U.E. Ambassador to the UN

As we stated above, treating people for AIDS *reduces* transmission rates. People might have more time on this planet to infect others, but as a matter of fact, they will infect fewer people during that time. HIV is much less contagious when patients are under treatment.

Sincerely,
Miranda Goolgeplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Support "Reduce Antibiotic Resistance" (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80559) for a healthier world!

While there are those who get infected with HIV through blood-transfusions and other medical related events, Aren't the majority of those infected with HIV and AIDS infected voluntarily through their own actions? I mean like sharing needles and certian other activities well known to have a high occurance of infections? Those that "Voluntarily" put themselves at risk for HIV and AIDS (those that know the risks) should be banned from receicing any vaccine or cure. Let's no forget that HIV and AIDS, for the most part, can be prevented. Now before I get all sorts of angry replies, let me remind everyone that I only think that those people who know the risks should be banned, not those who get it involuntarily, or by medical accidents. We need to spend more money on education the world (even though some stupid people will continue to put themselves at risk) about how HIV and Aids are spread.

The Dominion votes against this proposal.

The Allied States of Pertha has chosen to vote against this resolution as clause 2 will lead the way for a police state to gather information on its citizens, and clause 3 will result in the taxation of nations without this HIV problem. We fully support education, but throwing money at a problem never works, and never will. We also believe that it is not our job to keep the members of other nations alive and well for a little while longer.

The people who proposed this resolution are nothing but Hug-The-World Hippie Airheads. Somehow they've gotten it into their head that giving out cheap stuff to the poor actually helps them in any way shape or form.

This resolutions main points are to reduce the cost of the medication that is released. First off, by reducing costs the only thing your going to do is sent your own economies into debt.

So what if they are an impoverished country, I'm sure the people in civilized countries are THRILLED at the idea that they pay 3 times as much for the exact same medication just because their government happens to be wealthy. Are filthy people in foreign slums much more deserving of help than the people who actually contribute to the world and don't spend all their time picking food out of trashcans.

And on one final note. The main idea behind this stuff makes me sick. The media likes to present HIV and Aids as some horrible unavoidable disease that people can't help but catch. When in reality 99% of Aids carriers contracted the disease through some lifestyle choice that is KNOWN to result in it. We stopped pitying the chain-smoker who get lung cancer, why pity the heroin addict who accidentally picked up a dirty needle. I'm NOT saying it's some "wrath of god" thing. I'm simply saying
that it's NOT that hard to avoid. Don't sleep with every single person you meet and don't shoot filth into your arms, most people seem capable of doing that just fine.

I realize that people like emergency workers and the occasional accident in with a blood transfusion can get it without wanting to. But, despite what the media might like to present, that's a very very small percentage of people who get it.

My region votes against this because its an idealistic, but unrealistic proposal meant to make yourself feel warm and squishy inside, while not actually helping the situiation one bit.

TOOL a HOO votes against. Education and prevention is truely worth investing in, however AIDS drugs deos not cure. We would like to point out that the dying are suffering and feel it humanitarian to provide comfort drugs. This is only a stitch in the patch to this problem.

When it comes to an AIDS treatment drug, TOOL a HOO would rather put the directed funds into food banks to feed these nations starving people.

Finally the debate turns toward the big issue. This resolution does little but throw money at a problem. Providing lower cost drugs is nice, but not nearly as necessary as education or re-education of these countries. Many of these countries have serious misconceptions about the diesease and couldn't help themselves if they wanted to. Help them understand first - then give them the money to help. The resolution is hopelessly imbalanced (3 to 1) away from education & prevention, and in favor of economic issues.

Any moral nation will oppose this proposal outright because it mandates robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I would normally not respond to a forum thread. In my opinion, they usually degenerate into bloody arguments that don't really serve to convince anyone of anything they don't already beleive in. However....I suppose its human nature to defend one's work.

First of all, we all know that education is the most important part of stoping the AIDS epidemic...that is why it was the first article in the proposal. I would caution against using quantitative observations such as '1 article for this and 3 articles for that'. The number of articles devoted to something is not necessarily an indication of its importance.

Thus, let us all be clear that that this proposal firmly supports education and informational programs to curb the epidemic. What this proposal also does however, is recognize that educating people isn't the only facet of combating this illness. Treatment, though not as important as education, is still a method of curbing the disease's spread. Not everything in this world can be fixed by throwing money at it...treating AIDS however, is not one of them.

Finally, treating or not treating those with AIDS should not even be an issue for debate. Everyone has a right to life, even those with terminal illness, and even those who were stupid enough to not follow proper precautions. As for blaming those with the disease as being idiots who deserve what happened to them...I think that's a particularly narrowminded and closeted approach. If someone contracted HIV by sleeping around, so be it. I am not condoning their lifestyle, and I am not saying that they are free from blame for what happened. The point however, is whether or not they deserve to DIE for what they did. I would say no. Let us not use the fact that no permanent cure exists to justify not treating those suffering from this. By the logic some how used, we should allow all those suffering from inborn genetic diseases, cancer, and other 'incurable' disease, to simply die. Nonsense. Without attempting some sort of treatment at first, we can never arrive at a cure.

Furthermore, some have commented on the fact that people sleeping around KNOW they are probably gonna contract the disease. The sad truth is that most infected people in these countries simply did not know even that. They contracted HIV unknowingly and not because they CHOSE to live a high-risk lifestyle. They didn't even know it WAS high-risk. The educational part of this resolution aims to cure this deficiency. However, as I have tried to show, education isn't all we can do, and it isn't all we SHOULD do either.

Finally, let me comment on the nature of testing blood supplies for HIV. In a number of countries, UK and USA this is already done. In a number of other countries, it isn't. When you donate blood to the Red Cross or its equivalent organization, your blood is automatically screened for a number of pathogens...including Hepatitis, HIV, and recently, even West Nile. Making such screening a global phenomenon instead of something just limited to a few nations, is not going to violate anyone's rights. In fact, the Red Cross gives you the option of being informed if your blood is detected carrying any of the pathogens they screen for. You wan't a free AIDS test? Go donate some blood.

My only regret for this resolution is that I did not include an article dealing with support for AIDS research. I do believe that a truly permanant solution CAN be discovered, given enough resources.

-New Clarkhall.

To Quote(sorry the usual function doesn't seem to be working):
Esamopia
Powerbroker

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We share Aegonia's key concerns regarding the fact that the brunt of the resolution is not directed towards education (the only cure) but rather spending a great deal of money over... sadly people who are destined to die."

On behalf of the people of Watfordshire, I would like to point out that all of us: All the people of Watfordshire, of CACE, of Esamopia, Aegonia, New Clarkhall, the UN, the WORLD ....are ALL one day, DESTINED TO DIE.

A great deal of money is spent by all of our nations, capitalist or otherwise, on pursuing the legions of ways to make our lives longer, better, more enjoyable and to reduce our own personal suffering.

The call for compulsory financial aid from UN memberstates to address the epidemic that is HIV/AIDS is met by the people of Watfordshire.

We vote 'YES' because the very people who this proposal is designed to help are unable to help themselves. We do not vote 'YES' because it makes us feel 'squishy inside' as one of our *ahem* learned colleagues put it.

We vote 'YES' because we understand that death stands at everyones' shoulder and for that very reason, we all deserve the best that life has to offer.
We are saddened that many of the peoples' representatives in this forum, the supposedly 'educated' and 'developed' representatives, don't seem to have the adequate sensibilities to celebrate the simple fact of what life is.

But we urge all of those UN members who voted 'NO' not to worry... with all your education and responsibility and lack of passion for life in the heat of the moment, we're sure you won't catch anything nasty...
Cum to think of it... you probably 'one day' won't even die either.

In loving peace

Gudrun Karma
UN representative and Herald of Watfordshire

additional:

...or you could always change your vote to 'YES' and learn to live a little.

In reading your case, I have chosen to vote against the resolution.

-President of the Allied States of Joefis

Your misunderstanding of the context is noted. The "purpose" in discussion here is ridding the world of AIDS. Treatments for AIDS patients, although a wonderful thing, do not serve this purpose. We do not suggest affecting these funds or procedures at all. The discussion is that a global UN initiative should focus on prevention.

Aegonia has made very good points in this thread, all worthy of discussion. Idumea was leaning toward a "Yes" vote, but these arguments definitely made us stop and view the issue from another angle.

I have spoken with our surgeon general, Dr. Fiona Bixby, and she had this to say:

"People under treatment for AIDS are *much* less likely to spread the virus. Nobody is quite sure why this is so, but the epidemiological evidence for it is staggering. A pregnant woman who is not taking AIDS medication has a 25% chance of transmitting the virus to her baby. With a regimen of just AZT, this chance reduces to 8% (source: Project Inform's Pregnancy and HIV). More modern AIDS drugs can reduce it even farther.

"Providing anti-AIDS drugs to infected people should be a significant part of any program to try to stop the spread of the virus. It is just as effective--indeed, probably more effective--than education."

Dr. Bixby, Gurthark's Surgeon General, is reknowned throughout the world as a leading light in creating sensible AIDS policy. We feel that she has done more than enough to allay any of the concerns we might have had regarding this proposal. With respect and thanks to Aegonia for helping us to make a more informed and considered opinion, Idumea has decided to support this proposal.

While there are those who get infected with HIV through blood-transfusions and other medical related events, Aren't the majority of those infected with HIV and AIDS infected voluntarily through their own actions? I mean like sharing needles and certian other activities well known to have a high occurance of infections? Those that "Voluntarily" put themselves at risk for HIV and AIDS (those that know the risks) should be banned from receicing any vaccine or cure. Let's no forget that HIV and AIDS, for the most part, can be prevented. Now before I get all sorts of angry replies, let me remind everyone that I only think that those people who know the risks should be banned, not those who get it involuntarily, or by medical accidents. We need to spend more money on education the world (even though some stupid people will continue to put themselves at risk) about how HIV and Aids are spread.

People "voluntarily" put themselves at risk for catching the flu, meningitis etc by living in dorms. Should we bar them from getting a flu vaccine? People who are obese put themselves at risk for catching a heart attack. Should we tell EMS personell not to save people if they are fat?

It's not as if people say "Oh, I'm going to go and have sex with another person of the same sex because I want to have AIDS..." indeed, within the gay community people are likely more cautious than those people outside of the community. And you forget that there are war-ravaged nations where soldiers rape and brutalize women and children in razed cities - should we not help them either, because they live in a war-torn nation, like some of the African nations are?

We have a moral obligation to do our part in helping these people, and as such support a YES vote on the proposal.

I just see it as another way to discriminate people. I vote against it.

Erm...so how exactly does the proposal discriminate?

I guess you haven't heard "You've got AIDS so we don't want anything to do with you"

People "voluntarily" put themselves at risk for catching the flu, meningitis etc by living in dorms. Should we bar them from getting a flu vaccine? People who are obese put themselves at risk for catching a heart attack. Should we tell EMS personell not to save people if they are fat?
No...but other people shouldn't be forced to pay for it, either.We have a moral obligation to do our part in helping these people,
Not if it's done by stealing from people.

We agree to the spirit of this resolution.

Alas, the letter of it will allow a nation to spend the entire global fund without having to show proofs of it use. A global problem should be cared of globally. This resolution needs more severe regulation to be of use.

Bluntly said, we trust in helping the world, not in the world's honesty and benevolence.

Therefore, in its actual form, we vote NO.

Please note that the Most Serene Republic of Geal is already funding Internationnal Red Cross.

here here
Sadly i am forced to say that there is NO cure for aids. Why waist thousands of antibiotics to help them "live" in pain while the anti bios become useless due to overuse. WE COULD CUT COST BY JUST DROPPING FREE TROJANS. I say that this proposal is simply too "hopeful and expensive." It is simply too much for the UN to have to buy all this. It would probably take the GDP of a small nation such as mine for one month of the medicine. Sadly this burden, even if passed, could not be upkept.

The way I see this is, if the United Nations puts out so much money towards the HIV/AIDS medication, you'd think billions of it will be lost. Look at guerilla's in other underdeveloped countries, they steal, pirate, and exploit foreign aid to the needy. I would vote for this resolution if it was altered in some instance to show how long the operation will hold on for. Another comment I shall say, but do not take it to heart, is that, if you have HIV/AIDS, it's a medical fact that you will die. It can be 2 days or 20 years, there's no proven medication to prevent further stages. That's my opinion to this, other than that, I wouldn't mind donating money to the U.N. for this resolution, but since research and slow economies around the world are below average and some above, it is hard to say anything, when your people are first. Thank you for your time.

I guess you haven't heard "You've got AIDS so we don't want anything to do with you"

Pardon me for being dense, but I still miss the point of your objection. Yeah, if you have AIDS, people might discriminate against you. What does this have to do with the proposal?

I have spoken with our surgeon general, Dr. Fiona Bixby, and she had this to say:

"This objection--that AIDS drugs for people already afflicted are useless because they do nothing to eliminate the disease and only prolong the lives of doomed people--is based on a serious misunderstanding of AIDS transmission.

"People under treatment for AIDS are *much* less likely to spread the virus. Nobody is quite sure why this is so, but the epidemiological evidence for it is staggering. A pregnant woman who is not taking AIDS medication has a 25% chance of transmitting the virus to her baby. With a regimen of just AZT, this chance reduces to 8% (source: Project Inform's Pregnancy and HIV (http://www.projinf.org/fs/mothertochild.html)). More modern AIDS drugs can reduce it even farther.

"Providing anti-AIDS drugs to infected people should be a significant part of any program to try to stop the spread of the virus. It is just as effective--indeed, probably more effective--than education."

In addition, as United Nations Ambassador, I'd like to reiterate the humanitarian reasons to support this proposal. The argument that "these people are doomed" is moot. We're all doomed, in the sense we're going to die someday. AIDS drugs can add *decades* to people's lives. While they're certainly no substitute for a means of prevention or a true cure, they can allow afflicted people to see their children grow and their dreams mature.

Sincerely,
Miranda Goolgeplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Support "Reduce Antibiotic Resistance" (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80559) for a healthier world!

It may reduce the likelihood of transmission on a per-exposure basis (which is what your citations support), but shouldn't we be concerned with the per-lifetime transmission likelihood. Let's say hypothetically that the drugs reduce the likelihood of transmission on a per-exposure basis to one-third relative to the sans-drug likelihood for all methods of transmission. If an AIDS sufferer lives more than three times as long because of the drugs (chill out, probability experts - I know this is somewhat of an oversimplification, but you get the idea) they would be more likely to transmit the disease at some point during their lifetime than someone left untreated.

It's not as if people say "Oh, I'm going to go and have sex with another person of the same sex because I want to have AIDS..." indeed, within the gay community people are likely more cautious than those people outside of the community. And you forget that there are war-ravaged nations where soldiers rape and brutalize women and children in razed cities - should we not help them either, because they live in a war-torn nation, like some of the African nations are?
--------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, AIDS and HIV are no longer just a gay issue. Hetrosexuals are getting it now too. People, mostly men, are patronizeing prostitutes, druggies are shareing needles, why should we pay to help them? And you will notice I said "voluntarily subject themselfs to AIDS and HIV" Since when are rape victims "voluntary?"

As for fat people not being treated when they have a heart attack (I am a fat person myself so I thought about this) chances are they may have had a heart attack even if they were skinny. A heart attack is beyond human control. Jim Fixx, a longer distance runner (supposedly a practice to help you stay fit and lessen your risk) died of a heart attack while jogging. Mick Jagger, on the other hand, is nearing 60 and leads a rock and roll lifestyle and at last report is healthy.
AIDS and HIV are preventable. Don't have sex with multiple partners (same sex or not), don't re-use needles, try to avoid blood tranfusions and chances are you won't be infected. I am pretty confident I will avoid aquiring AIDS because I choose to remove myself from the high risk groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And you forget that there are war-ravaged nations where soldiers rape and brutalize women and children in razed cities - should we not help them either, because they live in a war-torn nation, like some of the African nations are?

So educate me... how will cheaper drugs help these people?

The people who proposed this resolution are nothing but Hug-The-World Hippie Airheads.

Better to have a bunch of "Hug-The-World Hippie Airheads" than a bunch of Blow-Up-The-World Right-Wing Fanatics".

Resolving Income Inequality under the guise of AIDS/HIV prevention is abhorent. Don't treat us as fools. We understand exactly what you are after. A Global Tax, A Global income redistribution. Prettying it up under the pretext of helping those with AIDS/HIV does them and the rest of us a disservice. I find it a shame that countries would stoop to such a low tactic to get their way. AIDS is a Hot Button topic. If one votes against it they are seen as being heartless, cruel and selfish. That is not the case. A vote against it is a vote for national sovereignty. It is a vote for common sense.

The UN has been unable to levy taxes against the member states as of yet. In one sweeping resolution, the UN becomes able to not only levy taxes, but they are apparently also able to give out tax breaks to the drug companies.

If you want to eradicate AIDS, re-work the resolution to deal with AIDS and not attempt to promote your socialistic agenda on the rest of the world.

Drugs ain't cheap. Alabammy is.

We's votin' against this here resolution.

'Sides, we ain't gonna go against the Will of God. If'n this be That. Which we ain't sayin' it is. But, just in case, ya know.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Gigglealia too votes against it.

What purpose does cheap HIV medication serve? It prolongs the lives of those afflicted and lets those afflicted live longer and spread it further. It doesn't cure it, it doesn't make it non-infectious, it doesn't reduce the mortality, it does nothing but prolong the pain.

There is no cure, there is only prevention. Gigglealia would much prefer to see money directed at education and education alone- there is nothing else that will help afflicted countried but prevention until there is a cure discovered, if ever.

Gigglealia however fears that the poorly educated plebian masses will vote for the proposal regardless as it's seen as 'politically correct' to give cheap HIV drugs to those afflicted. I urge such people to look at the real situation, all they're doing is prolonging the agony. Vote against the proposal, reality is more important than political correctness.

Is Gigglealia suggesting all those with fatal illness then be taken off their medications and allowed to "end their pain?" I hope I never get cancer (no "cure") under Gigglealia's rule. Just because there isn't a cure doesn't mean there will NEVER be. I believe the money should be spent on finding the cure. Easing the pain of someone in suffering is not necessarily PC. We could just start colonies for AIDS sufferers, just like the lepers. I mean, they should be satisfied with our offal and table scraps, right? God forbid we should tighten our belts so that some small African child might not die in agony.

Y'all got belts? Must be nice. We just use an old extension cord or a bit o' twine 'round these here parts.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Ok, for what feels like the five hundreth time....SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!!!

Ok, for what feels like the five hundreth time....SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!!!

Care to clarify? Are you objecting to the proposal, saying it is insubstatntial in that it deals primarily with the disease itself instead of the factors likely to contribute to its spread?
If not, then what?

<"sorry, but you may not delete posts that have been replied to :x ">

The two main arguements that i've seen here are:
1) They did it to themselves let them deal with the consequenses
and
2) Being a wealthy nation automatically requires you to fix the problems in poor countries while ignoring your own.


Personally I agree with the first one, who the hell says that just because a country is wealthy that it MUST care about what happens to weak little dirt holes that don't contribute to the economy at all. Religeous nuts contradict themselves all over, they believe that after death you go to someplace wonderful, yet they believe that even if a persons life is the crappiest, miserable, little nothing. We must spend millions of taxpayer dollars just to keep the leech alive. Because for some reason they got the idea in their heads that a human life is somehow special.

People think death is horrible and should never ever happen. But think about it. If nobody ever died in any war, car accidents, disease. can you possibly imagine what the population on the earth would be like today. The human race would have consumed every resource on, in, and around the planet centuries ago. ALong those lines, I think it's completely stupid to prolong the life of someone with disease, its bad enough we like to give old people 30 pills a day to keep their wrinkled butts around another 20 years.

METAPHOR MOMENT: a bird has one too many chicks, it's running itself to death trying to feed them. THEN one falls out of the nest. If it died then the mother would be able to feed its young and they could live. INSTEAD, some do-gooder who thinks he knows how the world is supposed to work comes along, find the chick on the ground, and "saves it's life" by putting it back in the nest. The do-gooder goes off patting himself on the back and thinking he's some kind of hero. What he doesn't see is the fact that the mother bird now has to work too hard again. Soon she can't function anymore and drops dead somewhere. The chicks then don't get food and they all die too. Yet this do gooder STILL thinks he helped the world because he didn't see what was really going on.

People think they can do good because they spend a little time doing something. As long as they don't see what really happens. They don't see the homeless guy getting killed in the alley because Goodwill gave him a new coat and some other bum wanted it. They don't see the mother beating her kids cuz she used her "humanitarian donation" to buy another bag of crack and one of her kids accidentally spilled a little. They don't see the Warlords killing peasants so he can take thier relief aide and sell it to somebody else. The same is true with disease relief, even now were talking about drug resistant strains of this illness and that disease. At the time we thought we were helping people and look where its gotten us. Smallpox could kill us all because we got rid of it instead of letting humanity deal with it in the proper manner of evolutionary resistance developement. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If you want to destroy a disease that is communicated only by direct contact, then you quarantine everyone who has it. It worked with leperousy. But todays society revolves around science and chemicals so much that we can't possibly believe that our newfangled "chemical religeon" isn't the answer to all our problems.

Also, if anyone has read a history book they might notice that much of the time when some powerful country comes in and tries to "educate" the populous, thats when all the terrorism starts and the Warlords start going nuts because they feel their power is threatened. People don't LIKE being told they don't know how the world works and they react strongly when someone tries to tell them otherwise. It happened in Mogadishu, it's happening in Iraq. And the entire Colonial Empires of Europe had problems lie that. And just becuase you go in saying its only "Humanitarian Aide" doesn't mean they won't still think you're trying take over in some small fashion.

Many of you think I'm being cruel, you prefer to live in your cozy little worlds where the earth is made of marshmallows and your parents lie to you to keep you from knowing how much life sucks. You prefer to believe that the problems in the world are isolated little things that can be dealt with simply by telling somebody they're doing it wrong and chucking enough money at them that you can brag a big number to your friends. The world is a harsh place where babies die from SIDS, Drug dealers rape children because thier parents cant pay for todays fix, and people still think they can change human nature just by telling them to stop it.

METAPHOR MOMENT: a bird has one too many chicks, it's running itself to death trying to feed them. THEN one falls out of the nest. If it died then the mother would be able to feed its young and they could live. INSTEAD, some do-gooder who thinks he knows how the world is supposed to work comes along, find the chick on the ground, and "saves it's life" by putting it back in the nest. The do-gooder goes off patting himself on the back and thinking he's some kind of hero. What he doesn't see is the fact that the mother bird now has to work too hard again. Soon she can't function anymore and drops dead somewhere. The chicks then don't get food and they all die too. Yet this do gooder STILL thinks he helped the world because he didn't see what was really going on.


You sir, are an idiot.

A mother bird only feeds the birds which get to the worm first. These bird become stronger the others die. The mother bird doesn't "work to hard" and go off to die.

As for them doing to themselves. I totally agree because we all know when we were infants we decided who would be our mother and who would be our father. And rape victims? Of course its they're at fault somehow. And if someone gives CPR to an AIDs victim without protection because that is the right thing to do and they get aids they must deserve it.

Perhaps one day you will realize that the victims are not always those who are guilty.

But as Aristophanes said "Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever."

But if I ever see you crying for help i will turn my back on you just like you do to so many others.

The United Nations is not or ought not to be a taxing authority and the proposal to, in essence, tax the richer nations to pay for drugs going to citizens of poorer nations. This is just another way to steal from those nations which have the type of sensible policies which produce wealth to provide for those nations which have poor policies and are therefore incapable of providing for their own citizens.

The very policy of government mandated income redistribution which is the direct cause of poverty is now suggested as the way for those who have followed this failed policy to give the "benefit" of their failed ideas to those of us who rejected them from the start.

Better that their populations die off as a result of their failures and allow the Darwinian imperative to function.

The United Nations is not or ought not to be a taxing authority and the proposal to, in essence, tax the richer nations to pay for drugs going to citizens of poorer nations. This is just another way to steal from those nations which have the type of sensible policies which produce wealth to provide for those nations which have poor policies and are therefore incapable of providing for their own citizens.

The very policy of government mandated income redistribution which is the direct cause of poverty is now suggested as the way for those who have followed this failed policy to give the "benefit" of their failed ideas to those of us who rejected them from the start.

Better that their populations die off as a result of their failures and allow the Darwinian imperative to function.

To Scourge35:

I might hold everything you said to be true, yet reject your conclusion, which seems to be to do nothing for the problems we see around us. Granted, giving a bum a new coat might make him a target for others. Granted, there are those who abuse social aid. Granted, aid can be lost due to corruption in local governments.

Granted all this, nothing you have said is an argument against doing SOMETHING beneficial for those in need. You might argue that WHAT we are doing is stupid becuase it doesn't work, or that it is misguided in that it does truly take into account all the consequences....and I would agree with you. However, using that as an excuse to simply do NOTHING is nonsensical, and I beleive most would reject that notion. Just because you keep failing in doing something does not mean you give up. You analyze what you are doing, figure out where your errors are, then try different approaches.

*********************************

To LostWages:

No sir, I have no hidden political agenda. I have no desire to ask the UN to levy a tax on its members. At one point in time, I was the first to yell my head off about national soverignity and states rights. I even introduced resolutions to curb the UN's powers to interfere in the internal affairs of states. They simply got deleted by the mods.

Their answer: "The UN has no limitations. In NationStates, the UN has the power to do whatever it wants, tax whoever it wants, and pass whatever laws it wants. Any resolution that tries to limit the UN's powers is in violation of game rules and will be deleted."

It was a bitted pill to swallow. I paid a severe price, the ejection of my nation from the UN, for proposing such resolutions, which I submitted unknowingly.

**************************************

To Har Akir,

I respect your words...most of the time. I fail to understand your opposition. At first it was about financing...untill you learned that the resolution only required voluntary contributions. Then, your argument shifted to condemning the category the resolution was introduced under...increasing basic welfare. I can easily see how providing infected people with medication can be termed as increasing their state of health and thus welfare (unless you see the word 'welfare' as having purely economic connotations). In any case, a more interesting question would be to ask...what better more relevant category would YOU have put this under?

-New Clarkhall.

To Scourge35:

I might hold everything you said to be true, yet reject your conclusion, which seems to be to do nothing for the problems we see around us. Granted, giving a bum a new coat might make him a target for others. Granted, there are those who abuse social aid. Granted, aid can be lost due to corruption in local governments.

Granted all this, nothing you have said is an argument against doing SOMETHING beneficial for those in need. You might argue that WHAT we are doing is stupid becuase it doesn't work, or that it is misguided in that it does truly take into account all the consequences....and I would agree with you. However, using that as an excuse to simply do NOTHING is nonsensical, and I beleive most would reject that notion. Just because you keep failing in doing something does not mean you give up. You analyze what you are doing, figure out where your errors are, then try different approaches.

*********************************

To LostWages:

No sir, I have no hidden political agenda. I have no desire to ask the UN to levy a tax on its members. At one point in time, I was the first to yell my head off about national soverignity and states rights. I even introduced resolutions to curb the UN's powers to interfere in the internal affairs of states. They simply got deleted by the mods.

Their answer: "The UN has no limitations. In NationStates, the UN has the power to do whatever it wants, tax whoever it wants, and pass whatever laws it wants. Any resolution that tries to limit the UN's powers is in violation of game rules and will be deleted."

It was a bitted pill to swallow. I paid a severe price, the ejection of my nation from the UN, for proposing such resolutions, which I submitted unknowingly.

**************************************

To Har Akir,

I respect your words...most of the time. I fail to understand your opposition. At first it was about financing...untill you learned that the resolution only required voluntary contributions. Then, your argument shifted to condemning the category the resolution was introduced under...increasing basic welfare. I can easily see how providing infected people with medication can be termed as increasing their state of health and thus welfare (unless you see the word 'welfare' as having purely economic connotations). In any case, a more interesting question would be to ask...what better more relevant category would YOU have put this under?

-New Clarkhall.

The United Nations is not or ought not to be a taxing authority and the proposal to, in essence, tax the richer nations to pay for drugs going to citizens of poorer nations. This is just another way to steal from those nations which have the type of sensible policies which produce wealth to provide for those nations which have poor policies and are therefore incapable of providing for their own citizens.

The very policy of government mandated income redistribution which is the direct cause of poverty is now suggested as the way for those who have followed this failed policy to give the "benefit" of their failed ideas to those of us who rejected them from the start.

Better that their populations die off as a result of their failures and allow the Darwinian imperative to function.

Have you heard of UN Dues? Which every country in the UN pays?

And Darwin was NOT an advocate of social darwinism. Your arguement is the same as that of the colonial powers and every dictator and maniac who comes to power. Those who live were correct and those who die were wrong, is an appalling logic to apply

Yeah, AIDS is a trendy disease it seems. Quite preventable, really. The Republic refuses forthwith to fund said initiative.

The honorable representative of the Most Serene Republic of Dhassa puts forth a point to ponder for those representatives who have expressed concerns about this resolution "prolonging the pain" of the AIDS epidemic:

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm), during 2002, AIDS caused the deaths of an estimated 3.1 million people, including 1.2 million women and 610,000 children under 15.

If a cure for AIDS were to be discovered just one year from now, and subsidization and distribution of current AIDS therapies could extend the lifespan of patients JUST ONE MORE YEAR, then this initiative will have saved an estimated 3 MILLION LIVES.

Every day that is granted to those with currently incurable ailments is one day closer they are to the day when a cure may be found.

The government of Dhassa believes that the potential for good inherent in this proposal far outweighs the financial burdens placed upon UN member nations. Dhassa stands in favor of the proposition.

The empire of Lohentopia backs this resolution.

This is for the following reasons:

Self-interest: It will be our problem next. The largest single group of new infections today come from heterosexual transmission, partly due to the rise of the most infectious form of HIV, namely type C. This type has yet to feature widely in the developed world, but will hit it soon. HIV drugs have been shown to help prevent new infections, as has already been detailed, even though they do not wholly cure the disease. This is believed to partly result from more responsible behaviour by those who obtain treatment compared to those who don't, and partly due to the greatly reduced viral load, and a corollary reduction in infectivity. In the real world, HIV has devastated and continues to devaste Africa, poses a great risk in parts of Latin America, and looks set to devastate India and China without great policy changes in the near future.

Economic: Providing affordable HIV drugs helps keep the population most at risk from HIV - those of working age - alive. This might help reverse the economic decline of third world nations and help them contribute to, rather than damage, the global economy.

Ethics: If we refuse to put out a hand to help a drowning man, we murder him as surely as if we stab, poison, shoot or strangle him. It is an urgent requirement for a healthy society that people cultivate a respect for human life. Hence we might as well be murdering those infected by this disease by refusing to treat them. And giving a person twenty years more to live does make a major difference.

Pragmatism: The combination of both approaches - drugs with education - has to be better than either alone. It essentially gives us an extra string to our bow in fighting this disease. Personally, I would have suggested adding a third string - provision of condoms, and needle exchanges - but I can understand why this might have been a bit too controversial to pass on a global scale.

Isn't "The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations," against the UN charter thing?

I thought the UN cannot collect money.

And what are the powerhouse economies of the world supposed to reap from such an action. Your effort to have this passed may seem noble for the majority of the nations here, but those that are economically vibrant and are spiritually strong have nothing to gain by having such a resolution passed.

To be spiritually strong, it is necessary to have integrity.

What integrity can we possibly hold claim too if we hold human life too cheap?

Besides, we all live in a global village. HIV damages the economies of stricken countries to an immense degree, and by doing so prevents them from entering into (potentially lucrative) trade with us.

The theocracy of Nirgwan agrees with Aegonia, with prevention programs and emotinal support we can stop this, not by handing out medicines. The problem is the mind, not the body.
'Its Nirgwans will'

how the f**k can u vote against this?

i must compliment ure humanitarian skills. NOT

Eli is advocating 'yes' votes within the Capitalist Alliance. No organization formed by humans can be perfect and charity for the disadvantaged and the less fortunate is a course that all prosperous nations should embrace. Eli as delagate for the Capitalist Alliance will of course vote with the majority opinion of the CA but is advocating a 'YES' vote for the resolution.

Eli

Mouth of The Elians

"The natural state of man is capitalism. Any other type of market condition is a way for losers to try to equalize their shortcomings."

Capitalism is great... but it doesn't mean anything to countries that don't have money. It doesn't matter how cheap you make drugs because people without money still can't buy them. You're letting your capitalist ideals blind you from the reality of other nations. These people don't need your money - they need your help. Educate these people so that they can learn to protect themselves.

Aegonia totally agrees with the intent of the resolution, but not its means. I don't understand the gung-ho capitalists that seem to think throwing money at a problem makes it go away. Drugs won't help somebody who doesn't understand that he has a disease that doesn't make him feel sick. Drugs won't help people who don't understand that they are getting the disease from sex and not from casual contact with others. Drugs certainly won't help someone who doesn't understand that the drugs aren't curing him.

Think about it. It's very simple to disagree with this. It's throwing money down the toilet and allowing a problem to continue.

You sir, are an idiot.

Now that there be funny! 'Cause it sure looks ta me likes yer the one not understandin' what a metaphor be.

Yessir, y'all wanna read some real fool's hen-scratchin's, read this here:

how the f**k can u vote against this?

i must compliment ure humanitarian skills. NOT

Gots ta make me wonder if'n this ain't the sort of person that'd be votin' for this piece of UN work-stuff.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

[quote="Lohentopia"]What integrity can we possibly hold claim too if we hold human life too cheap?

It isn't that we in Gillette hold human life too cheap, rather it is when individuals make poor decisions that makes that life too cheap. Through actions and words, they ruin the value of their own lives and the lives of their families and communities.

how the f**k can u vote against this?


Because we are a moral nation that realizes that robbing Peter to pay Paul is NEVER justified.

To Quote(sorry the usual function doesn't seem to be working):
Esamopia
Powerbroker

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We share Aegonia's key concerns regarding the fact that the brunt of the resolution is not directed towards education (the only cure) but rather spending a great deal of money over... sadly people who are destined to die."

On behalf of the people of Watfordshire, I would like to point out that all of us: All the people of Watfordshire, of CACE, of Esamopia, Aegonia, New Clarkhall, the UN, the WORLD ....are ALL one day, DESTINED TO DIE.

A great deal of money is spent by all of our nations, capitalist or otherwise, on pursuing the legions of ways to make our lives longer, better, more enjoyable and to reduce our own personal suffering.

The call for compulsory financial aid from UN memberstates to address the epidemic that is HIV/AIDS is met by the people of Watfordshire.

We vote 'YES' because the very people who this proposal is designed to help are unable to help themselves. We do not vote 'YES' because it makes us feel 'squishy inside' as one of our *ahem* learned colleagues put it.

We vote 'YES' because we understand that death stands at everyones' shoulder and for that very reason, we all deserve the best that life has to offer.
We are saddened that many of the peoples' representatives in this forum, the supposedly 'educated' and 'developed' representatives, don't seem to have the adequate sensibilities to celebrate the simple fact of what life is.

But we urge all of those UN members who voted 'NO' not to worry... with all your education and responsibility and lack of passion for life in the heat of the moment, we're sure you won't catch anything nasty...
Cum to think of it... you probably 'one day' won't even die either.

In loving peace

Gudrun Karma
UN representative and Herald of Watfordshire

OOC: Rarely are we ever quoted (we find this very enjoyable) and we therefore found it necessary to respond.

IC: "I obviously agree with the fact that all people are destined to die, be they from Esamopia, your nation, the nation reading this, or whoever, and that an argument against spending money to save some lives would be erroneous based on this fact alone."
"We must stress the fact that this one sided thinking has consequences, in fact grave consequences, in that injured citizens could be denied healthcare (they will die anyway at sometime, right?) or massive executions/slaughters/massacres can be justified with the fact that these people "would have died eventually anyway!"

"We are therefore insulted when in quoting you cited only that part of the statement, and made us look so damn evil! The reason we cannot support massive spending for this resolution (which will pass anyway, so don't worry about my objections,) is that it is mostly directed towards those already infected (medicines are not given to those who are not infected and I am not aware of any vaccine...) and it seems as if the statement regarding education, the best way to stop the spread of the disease, was put in as an afterthought (although listed first in the resolution's demands, it is not followed up.) "
"Only by education can the myths regarding AIDS be broken apart, only through destroying ignorance can we save those who are not yet infected from a terrifying disease. Without education, any and all efforts will be counterproductive, as the increased lifespan of those infected will only give them more time to spread the disease (and thus increasing AIDS-infected people) if education is not provided."

"Although this resolution is likely to pass regardless of my protests, I urge those who are seriously thinking about this resolution regardless of its probable outcome to vote AGAINST the resolution currently before the United Nations General Assembly."

-Ambassador to the United Nations
Negru Pamponda
Esamopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In the closing day, I would just like to thank all those who did not support the resolution - those who were able to see through the "feel good" message to a capitalist-blinded proposal that doesn't solve anything it claims to fix. I feel better knowing that there are at least a thousand of us who actually read the proposals.

Please vote AGAINST if you are still deciding, and peruse the messages in this thread for some great arguments.

In summary, Aegonia's position is that education is most important - and most ignored by this proposal. Throwing money at the problem does not make it go away. Tax incentives to the pharmaceutical industries will not create cheaper drugs - only a greedier market. Cheaper drugs do not help the people who need to be helped - those in war-torn nations that have no economy (no money) to buy even the cheapest drugs.

You can't help people who don't know how to help themselves. Without education - these people continue to unknowingly spread the disease. This doesn't solve anything.

reduces the population though. Leaving the more educated people.

Level headed people are taken at far lower rate then stupid people.

This is the ultimate form of human natural selection.

reduces the population though. Leaving the more educated people.

Level headed people are taken at far lower rate then stupid people.

This is the ultimate form of human natural selection.

Then we look forward to welcoming your hopefully more level-headed replacement ambassador when you succumb to the ravages of this terrible disease.

Epidemia is right (although not out of context as it was suggested). Those less educated about the disease are far more likely to suffer and die from it those who are aware of it, its symptoms, and how to prevent it. Education is incredibly important to both stopping this disease and reducing the suffering from its related illnessses.

Epidemia,

There but for fortune go you, or I.

If we don't educate people about the disease, they won't know how not to catch it.

If we don't treat people who have the disease, they will have nothing to live for, and no reason to care enough to avoid spreading it.

[Real world] If this hits China or India anything like as hard as it's already hit Africa, the world economy will take a nosedive, again, and nothing good will come of that.

And besides, natural selection should work better if people are given a fair warning through education first, and a chance to act on that warning.

In the closing day, I would just like to thank all those who did not support the resolution - those who were able to see through the "feel good" message to a capitalist-blinded proposal that doesn't solve anything it claims to fix. I feel better knowing that there are at least a thousand of us who actually read the proposals.

Thousands of us who support the proposal also read the proposals. We just happen to disagree with what you read into it.

In summary, Aegonia's position is that education is most important - and most ignored by this proposal. Throwing money at the problem does not make it go away. Tax incentives to the pharmaceutical industries will not create cheaper drugs - only a greedier market.

I seem to notice that an increase in AIDS education is the FIRST thing to be addressed by this proposal. There are four distinct and discrete subsections in this proposal, each focusing on a different aspect of the problem at hand (Education, Protection, Assistance, and Availability). No single aspect is given more attention than the others. If anything can be said to have been stressed, then Education's place as first and foremost in the proposal can be said to indicate an acknowledgement of its importance as part of the solution. However it IS only PART of the solution.

In brief, the proposal urges:
1) An international education program. (EDUCATION)
2) Increased testing of blood-based resources. (PROTECTION)
3) A general fund to aid those nations who cannot afford drugs. (ASSISTANCE)
4) Incentives for drug companies to lower the cost of the drugs so that the fund in #3 can be utilized to greater effect. (AVAILABILITY)

You claim that this proposal is "capitalist-blinded," but yet in the next breath claim that it is simply "throwing money at the problem." I don't know what world you live in, but true capitalists have a tendency to not throw money at ANYTHING. Try not to contradict yourself - you make your opponent's job much easier.

Out of the 4 subsections of this proposal, only #4 directly impacts "capitalist" ventures, and even that only partially. Subsection 4 mentions tax breaks as one OPTION for incentives, not the only option. For instance, multinational pharmaceutical companies that are based in communist nations may not benefit from tax incentives like their brethren in capitalist nations, but they would benefit from other options for incentives such as reduction of import/export tariffs and beneficial trade concessions. Thus, even the "blindly capitalist" portion of this proposal has wider-ranging benefits than to JUST capitalist ventures.

Cheaper drugs do not help the people who need to be helped - those in war-torn nations that have no economy (no money) to buy even the cheapest drugs.

To answer this, I will simply refer to subsection #3 above. Enough said.

You can't help people who don't know how to help themselves. Without education - these people continue to unknowingly spread the disease. This doesn't solve anything.

It is amazing how all of your so-called "informed arguments" can be answered by merely referring to the actual proposal you claim to have read. I will refer you to subsection #1, first and foremost in the proposal.

Before you accuse others of not having read the proposal, I suggest you do the same.

Epidemia is right (although not out of context as it was suggested). Those less educated about the disease are far more likely to suffer and die from it those who are aware of it, its symptoms, and how to prevent it. Education is incredibly important to both stopping this disease and reducing the suffering from its related illnessses.

Please refer to section #1 of the proposal:

1) The United Nations begin a global effort to educate and enlighten the populations of seriously affected countries as to the nature of AIDS as well as how to take preventitive measures.

The government of Dhassa - not to mention the resolution at hand - agrees with you that education is incredibly important to stopping AIDS and reducing suffering. As such it is first to be addressed by this resolution. Education, however, is only PART of the solution.

Every resource spent on medicines for current AIDS sufferers is a resource that cannot be spent on research and education. Bearing in mind the finite resources available to addressing the AIDS problem, devoting resources to these medicines impedes the solution, rather than being a part of it. It appears that the passage of this well intentioned but ill conceived proposal is inevitable, but, fortunately, the funding of it is voluntary. My nation will not volunteer a dime to this function of the UN, but will continue its preexisting AIDS related project which focus exclusively on education and research. I urge you all to do the same.

Heksefattania opposes the current UN resolution, and is considering resigning from the UN in the likely case that the resolution is passed, and especially if more left-wing resolutions like this one is passed. We are of the opinion that it violates a person's basic right to dispose over his or her body and the fruits of his or her labor. Our citizens may or may not desire to help the infected, as may the citizens of any other nation, however, they should not be forced to contribute to other people through their taxes, as it robs charity of its personal element. Now people all over the world are probably going to say: "Well I pay my taxes, I've done MY part", which will probably even leave the AIDS-stricken with less help than before.
What is this resolution actually? It it COMMUNISM! And we must act to cut out the cancer of communism whereever it is to be found!
Also, quite honestly, I'm an asshole who just don't give a fig about other people.

Heksefatter
God of Heksefattania

Every resource spent on medicines for current AIDS sufferers is a resource that cannot be spent on research and education. Bearing in mind the finite resources available to addressing the AIDS problem, devoting resources to these medicines impedes the solution, rather than being a part of it. It appears that the passage of this well intentioned but ill conceived proposal is inevitable, but, fortunately, the funding of it is voluntary. My nation will not volunteer a dime to this function of the UN, but will continue its preexisting AIDS related project which focus exclusively on education and research. I urge you all to do the same.

While those of us in support of this resolution respect your position, we hold the lives of those currently afflicted as dear as those who may potentially be saved by education and research. By extending the lifespans of those currently afflicted *as well as* educating those who need it, we leave open the possibility of saving EVERYONE from this plague, for when a cure for AIDS is found it will only benefit those who are still alive to be cured.

4) Economic incentives such as tax write-offs be offered to multinational pharmaceutical companies to allow AIDS medications to be bought in bulk and at lower than market prices,

I oppose this resolution because of these tax write-offs. Pharmaceutical companies don't deserve tax write-offs. What is needed is price controls to stop them from charging the exorbitant fees as they currently do.

for when a cure for AIDS is found it will only benefit those who are still alive to be cured.

We apologize for your misinformation, Dhassa, but a virus cannot be cured. You can only prevent viruses with vaccines.

I would like to take this moment to thank Schim and Timbashi for reinforcing two of my biggest points. Education needs to be the primary focus, not a quarter of it. It is education that will prevent disease spread and suffering more than anything else. And tax incentives rarely translate into cheaper products. Take factory to dealer incentives on automobiles for example. Dealerships will still sell vehicles without the price incentives passed on to the consumer - choosing to gain in profits instead.

We apologize for your misinformation, Dhassa, but a virus cannot be cured. You can only prevent viruses with vaccines.

And we apologize for your lack of foresight, Aegonia. There was a time when bacterial infections could not be cured. That barrier has since been overcome. Are you so shortsighted that you believe that, with the incredible advances in genetic research and biotechnology, the barrier to curing viral infections might never be overcome? Forgive us if we prefer to remain optomistic and have some faith in the human ability to innovate and overcome. In fact, we of Dhassa believe that if anything should be changed about this resolution, it is that a 5th article should be added to provide increased support into AIDS research, for THAT is ultimately where our salvation shall be found.

And as for your example of the factory to dealer incentives, you again try to inaccurately represent the situation put forth here. In your example, the incentives are offered for all dealers that sell the factory's product, regardless of what the dealers do with the money. As for this proposal, in order to RECEIVE the incentives, the pharmaceutical company MUST provide a lower cost product. There is no comparison to be made.

I give you this...

3) The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations, which shall be used to purchase necessary drugs and distrubute them at low cost to the populations of seriously afflicted countries,

4) Economic incentives such as tax write-offs be offered to multinational pharmaceutical companies to allow AIDS medications to be bought in bulk and at lower than market prices

Interesting indeed. I appreciate the spirit of the resolution, but my god this is horrid. Essentially, we will all be forced to contribute to some sort of fund to buy drugs and distribute and educate. The nation of Omnifiend will not be forced to pay for another country's indiscretions. Nor should any other country. What has the all the money done to Africa in the real world? We are getting leaders who now don't see "why we should pay them back", referring to the money spent and such. It will quickly turn into a boondoggle of epic proportions. Hypothetically: We have this fund of tons of money. "To buy drugs" as said in the resolution. "in bulk and at lower than market prices." OKay...let us bring this baby home. What the hell is the point of a tax write-off IF you are going to essentially be getting a subsidy from the U.N. for your drugs. Why would a corporation sell at a lower than market price? They would lose money, but be propped up by the international fund.
This is kind of like energy deregulation. Especially in California. We have this half-n-half kind of thing going on. We natural market forces combined with an inefficient governmental set up where any incentive is either discouraged by the government or the government simply does not allow such market activities.
The Federation opposes the resolution as it is written.

I give you this...

3) The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations, which shall be used to purchase necessary drugs and distrubute them at low cost to the populations of seriously afflicted countries,

4) Economic incentives such as tax write-offs be offered to multinational pharmaceutical companies to allow AIDS medications to be bought in bulk and at lower than market prices

Interesting indeed. I appreciate the spirit of the resolution, but my god this is horrid. Essentially, we will all be forced to contribute to some sort of fund to buy drugs and distribute and educate. The nation of Omnifiend will not be forced to pay for another country's indiscretions. Nor should any other country. What has the all the money done to Africa in the real world? We are getting leaders who now don't see "why we should pay them back", referring to the money spent and such. It will quickly turn into a boondoggle of epic proportions. Hypothetically: We have this fund of tons of money. "To buy drugs" as said in the resolution. "in bulk and at lower than market prices." OKay...let us bring this baby home. What the hell is the point of a tax write-off IF you are going to essentially be getting a subsidy from the U.N. for your drugs. Why would a corporation sell at a lower than market price? They would lose money, but be propped up by the international fund.
This is kind of like energy deregulation. Especially in California. We have this half-n-half kind of thing going on. We natural market forces combined with an inefficient governmental set up where any incentive is either discouraged by the government or the government simply does not allow such market activities.
The Federation opposes the resolution as it is written.

I give you this...

3) The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations, which shall be used to purchase necessary drugs and distrubute them at low cost to the populations of seriously afflicted countries,

4) Economic incentives such as tax write-offs be offered to multinational pharmaceutical companies to allow AIDS medications to be bought in bulk and at lower than market prices

Interesting indeed. I appreciate the spirit of the resolution, but my god this is horrid. Essentially, we will all be forced to contribute to some sort of fund to buy drugs and distribute and educate. The nation of Omnifiend will not be forced to pay for another country's indiscretions. Nor should any other country. What has the all the money done to Africa in the real world? We are getting leaders who now don't see "why we should pay them back", referring to the money spent and such. It will quickly turn into a boondoggle of epic proportions. Hypothetically: We have this fund of tons of money. "To buy drugs" as said in the resolution. "in bulk and at lower than market prices." OKay...let us bring this baby home. What the hell is the point of a tax write-off IF you are going to essentially be getting a subsidy from the U.N. for your drugs. Why would a corporation sell at a lower than market price? They would lose money, but be propped up by the international fund.
This is kind of like energy deregulation. Especially in California. We have this half-n-half kind of thing going on. We natural market forces combined with an inefficient governmental set up where any incentive is either discouraged by the government or the government simply does not allow such market activities.
-Zerro
Most Exalted Corporate Leader of the Federation of Omnifiend

I agree with the others that want this voted against. Prevention is the only true key here. It would make more sense to put money into preventing the disease instead of prolonging the death of those already infected. ~ there's my 2 cents

Leader of the Whittelwons2

Are you going to allow semantics to stop us doing good in the world

Please elaborate on this idea...

I don't remember who said it, but it's the truth. Life has a 100% mortality rate and affects 100% of the population. If there's a point in prolonging life at all, there's a point in prolonging the lives of those with AIDS. Yes, unmedicated people w/ AIDS tend to not be very happy, but the pain is bearable with tretment. AIDS would even be survivable if an individual could be separated from potential sources of other diseases.

And we apologize for your lack of foresight, Aegonia. There was a time when bacterial infections could not be cured. That barrier has since been overcome.

I now point out your "apples to oranges" comparison error.

Bacterial infections have always been curable - by the human body. I can only assume that you are referring to antibiotics which do not cure bacterial infections, only treat them. Antibiotics won't kill a bacteria that the body doesn't already have some defense against.

In addition - MY GOD!! How is making AIDS a livable condition taking precedence over eliminating the disease?? We may as well give everyone the disease and teach them how to live with it instead.

As for this proposal, in order to RECEIVE the incentives, the pharmaceutical company MUST provide a lower cost product. There is no comparison to be made.

We must also point out that this would not be an incentive. What pharmaceutical company would choose to lower prices in exchange for money from a fund guarded by a mess of bureaucratic red-tape? A fund which also apparently has voluntary contribution. They would never believe that they would get more money in return than they could earn on their own, and in turn, choose not to reduce their prices.

Editted insertion:
But this is beside the point. These war-torn countries that we are supposedly helping don't have money - or have debt. You can't buy anything with nothing, no matter how cheap it is.

...Prevention is the only cure for AIDS...

Oh I beg to differ.

There are several teams working on things to kill said virus. If a cure is still not found in 5 years time, I intend to join one.

...Prevention is the only cure for AIDS...

Oh I beg to differ.

There are several teams working on things to kill said virus. If a cure is still not found in 5 years time, I intend to join one.

Yeah, but until then, prevention is still the only cure for AIDS. People who have AIDS right now may not live the 5 years.

So in the meantime how is protecting more people from getting this terrible disease not the number one concern?

So in the meantime how is protecting more people from getting this terrible disease not the number one concern?

As a matter of fact, it DOES seem to be the #1 concern...literally.
"1) The United Nations begin a global effort to educate and enlighten the populations of seriously affected countries as to the nature of AIDS as well as how to take preventitive measures"

Hmmm...looks like #1 to me...

Not only does our country believe that blood should be tested, but the person who donates it should have to be informed. Furthermore it may help to put a punishment on anyone who knowingly commits acts that could transmit AIDS to unknowing people, however this would be extremely hard to find and enforce. To much of the problem is caused by a persons own misdeeds, we agree with prevention nothing else. On the upside this bill requires no set donation, we can give a penny. The problem is that this does not help the AIDS issue, perhaps some nation could wright a new draft.....

Franky Homes
Ambassador of Thunder Bird

On the subject of viruses, and cures.

The problem with curing AIDS is not that it is a virus - some viruses are cured quite well by antiviral drugs, although in general these certainly don't tend to work as well as antibiotics. A virus is a very small thing and spends much of its life cycle inside host cells, making it hard to target. It is that as a retrovirus, its genetic code can sit quite happily dormant inside the DNA of an infected T cell, even though the various anti-retroviral drugs prevent the virus from replicating; the virus is only eliminated by cell death, and some T cells take a very long time to die.

Steps towards an HIV vaccine have been pretty abortive, partly because the human immune system tends to be an inadequate defence against this virus however predisposed it is to targetting it; although some people are long-term non-progressors, and take a long time to suffer AIDS after HIV infection, this tends to be a result of the particular genetics either of the virus or of the patient.

So yes, the best answers to preventing the spread of the disease are education, better hygiene and more responsible sexual behaviour. But it would be inhumane to let the infected die, and besides, as I have said before, too much of the work force or potential work force is infected in some nations, and it is an economic necessity to keep them alive.

As it happens, it would take a major swing now for the resolution not to pass. If you disagree with the resolution, I would recommend against leaving the UN if you are unhappy with the result; you'll only damage the chances of decisions you like being passed in the future. You'd do better to try to pull people of your political stance into the UN.

Why on earth does it have to be an all-or-nothing approach on both sides of the prevention/cure dichotomy.

Both aspects are essential in removing the threat of any disease, and in particular HIV-AIDS.

A great example of the combination of the two is the erradication of polio, a disease now only found in Labs around the world (discarding Bush's trash). The paitents often suffered massive paralysis, unable to walk, sometimes not even breath. These paitents needed to be treated, and were. Splints were designed and built, drugs to clear lungs found and administered, the affected people's quality of life was improved beyond recognition. My work (the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne) had half it's paitents under the heading of "Polio on-going care" at the turn of the century. Now an urgent report to the Health Department must be made if a child presents with Polio. The problem was too big to ignore and let the kids suffer, and the AIDS pandemic is developing along the same lines as the Polio one, particuarly in Africa, where 1/3 pop infection rates are not uncommon. In 1897, 1/3 of the children of Footscray (an inner city working-class suburb) were polio victims. The other half of the equation is the massive vacination and education effort embarked on by health authorities between 1930 and 1960. It is for this campaign that I do not have to wear a mask at work. Combined, this dual approach saved and helped the lives of millions of children world-wide. It is a combined approach that is required now, as AIDS is truly pandemic.

Also, Viral disease are treatable, not with conventional antibiotics that you commonly know (like amoxicilian or Keflex, that nearly every westener has taken), but by interupting their reproduction pattern, which is open to attack on a number of fronts. The oldest of these treatments is Human-antiglobulin, extracted from blood donations, and has been used scince the 1950s to help the body;s immune system out. Drugs for treating AIDS have been avaliable to the rich for almost a decade. Recently, one reproduction-process drug that stops the virus hijacking the cell's assembly apuratus has been given American FDA approval, and two more have proceeded to Human tests. In Australia, the TGA has followed the FDA's lead on anti-virals. So, please, do not spout that Viral diseases are incurable, otherwise we'd all be dead of our first common cold. Viruses are dealt with by our immune system, and are begining to be tackled by effective drugs.

Lets go for a balanced aproach, sharing resources between prevention and cure, both of which are a few years off still. Meanwhile, 1 person is infected with HIV every 2 hours. Uphold Humanity

The Holy Republic of Eredron also opposes this resolution.

In any case, the resolution has now passed. I thank all those who have shared their views, whether for or against the resolution.

What has been brought to my attention due to this controversy, however, is the inability of the UN to repeall and legislation. While I naturally would not like to see a resolution that I sponsored being repealled, I strongly support the theoretical right to do so.

Unfortunately, in NS, we do not have such an ability. I would urge any and all responsible nations to join the people of New Clarkhall in expressing their dissatisfaction with the current UN system which prevents this. A proposal with this aim has already been submitted.

-New Clarkhall

Are you going to allow semantics to stop us doing good in the world

"Unfortunately the flaws in this resolution are more than 'semantics,' and would cause a great deal of funds to be wasted instead of being directed for providing cheap drugs for curable diseases, or in the case of AIDS, for education and prevention, the only true cure in the gruesome battle against the epidemic. We hope that a similar proposal is made in the future, one that focuses on education and prevention, and we would then surely support it all the way."

-Esamopian Ambassador to the United Nations.

I have not been online for about a week, and found my economy had plummeted from good to basket case, because of this resolution. And no one in society in Moontian has HIV-AIDS, as they are 'quarantined' to prevent the spread of the infection.

Yes, for better or worse the resolution has been passed.

at the moment i will not vote but i will agree with other that people shoud know that aids is dangerous and know how its affected and shoud be more aware and what happens when your infected with aids but i will do vaccines to prevent aids and other viruses to people whos not infected.