NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't been as active on teh forums recently since I haven't had much time but here's my two cents on the resolution:

Description: NOTING with horror the enormous increase in the past decade in HIV infection rates throughout the world,"

There's really three ways you can get AIDS:
-A kid gets it because his/her parents have it, in which case it isn't has fault.
-Blood transfusion (this is EXTREMELY rare)
-Adults get it because they had unsafe sex. This accounts for probably at least two-thirds and up to 75-80% of total cases. Therefore, MOST (but certainly not all) AIDS patients are directly responsible for their own conditions. They should have to pay for it.

FURTHER NOTING that the cost of AIDS medications is enormous,

So is the cost of multimillion dollar mansions. No one's making a proposal to give me a mansion below market value.

FURTHER NOTING that most countries with significant populations of AIDS sufferers are not economically able to afford these necessary drugs due to their high costs,

Or because they have socialist medical policies (Botswana) or they are too busy killing each other to think about AIDS (The DRC, formerly Zaire) or the infection rate is so high that it's a lost cause anyway (Mozambique).

REQUIRES the following:

I have no complaint with this statement.

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,

Yes, just look at how well sex-ed has just lowered the underage sex rate in the United States :roll:. We can't even educate our own people, how are we going to go around educating third-worlders?

2) 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,

The disease is rarely trasnmitted through transfusions because transfusions themselves are relatively rare. The vast majority of AIDS is transmitted through unsafe sex. I propose that we endorse my resolution to force everyone to take a biology class instead!

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,

Here we go with teh robbing Peter to pay Paul again... It's bad enough to rob Peter to pay Paul, but robbing Peter to pay Paul... in another country? Moreover, AIDS medication doesnt actually get rid of the AIDS virus... it just keeps it in incubation... you still die eventaully which means that MORE people will be infected... and ultimately die. Even if you are a socialist and you disagree with everything I said, you should still vote AGAINST this resolution on the basis that it will lead to HIGHER AIDS infection rates, therefore MORE AIDS deaths.

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,

Yes, just look at how well artificially lowering prices worked in, say, the New York City housing rentals or China's Great Leap Forward! Yep, only 40some million dead, that's not that bad. :roll:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bill is impractical and unjust. It must be destroyed. Since this bill will inevitably lead to more AIDS deaths after a few decades as well as teh destruction of essential liberties, I have two theories:

- The author is good intentioned but doesn't understand how AIDS medication works. (Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding --US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis)
- The author is a vile agent of death, desolation, and tyranny. This is possible too. Regardless of your political affiliation, you should oppose this bill because it is stupid.

And we say you have no care for human health and wellfare. Yshurak has voted FOR the resolution.

President Jan Horembolg

Actually, he is a moral individual and therefore is opposed to robbing Peter to pay Paul for any reason (except if Peter has committed some sort of transgression against Paul).

I voted for it because I do not believe that the AIDS epidemic will meet a timely end without the intervention of the government.

I do not believe that universal health care or below market cost drugs are the guaranteed to the people, but this is a special (and quite dangerous) condition.

-The Greater Representative
X>=0

I do see your responses as valid. My vote still stands a firm yes. Though it may be a futile gesture, to do nothing at all, when we have even the slightest chance of success, makes us worse than any of this despicable countries you mentioned. That is my comment. Good night.

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.

Wheather it helps or not, it certainly won't hinder the battle against AIDS in the world. I do not the the cons of this proposal.

Stupid Double Post... Wheres the Delete

I haven't been as active on teh forums recently since I haven't had much time but here's my two cents on the resolution:

There's really three ways you can get AIDS:
-A kid gets it because his/her parents have it, in which case it isn't has fault.
-Blood transfusion (this is EXTREMELY rare)
-Adults get it because they had unsafe sex. This accounts for probably at least two-thirds and up to 75-80% of total cases. Therefore, MOST (but certainly not all) AIDS patients are directly responsible for their own conditions. They should have to pay for it

You want to know why it's rare that you get aids from blood transfusions anymore? Because there has been a testing program to ensure that this does not happen. But there isn't a testing system everywhere. This is part of the reason why AIDs spread so fast in China. They mixed all the blood together thus making it all infected.

And there are pharmaceutical products which are drawn from a large collection of blood. Such as blod clotting agents for hemophilia, which are at a tremendous risk to become infected with HIV.

And the cases of children becoming infected with aids from their parents can be avoided with proper medical care and medication. This is the kind of thing that the resolution is aimed at.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/aidstherapeutics/research/peripriorities.htm

Yes, just look at how well sex-ed has just lowered the underage sex rate in the United States . We can't even educate our own people, how are we going to go around educating third-worlders?

Yeah, isn't it funy that in the United States, where schools have gotten sued for talking about anti-contraceptives the health ed programs haven't been too effective?

The campaigns in several african nations have become tremendously effective in slowing the spread of aids.

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/uganda030313.html

Here we go with teh robbing Peter to pay Paul again... It's bad enough to rob Peter to pay Paul, but robbing Peter to pay Paul... in another country? Moreover, AIDS medication doesnt actually get rid of the AIDS virus... it just keeps it in incubation... you still die eventaully which means that MORE people will be infected... and ultimately die. Even if you are a socialist and you disagree with everything I said, you should still vote AGAINST this resolution on the basis that it will lead to HIGHER AIDS infection rates, therefore MORE AIDS deaths.

Read my above statement about preventing aids from being transmitted from mother to offspring

Yes, just look at how well artificially lowering prices worked in, say, the New York City housing rentals or China's Great Leap Forward! Yep, only 40some million dead, that's not that bad.

Um mind telling me how evicting peasents off their property and forcing them to work in collectives is the same thing as offering tax breaks to a company in order to encourage them to not go profiteering off illnesses?

but think of those who have aids and dont know it, if we have tests and all that and info they might come forward and get tested which will be able to gradually quell the epidimic. NASCAR J Johnson has voted a firm YES on this resolution

I too agree. Sadly this is too much of a burden for the UN. Also you have to look at the anti-biotics. The people using these will eventually need new kinds because the AIDS itself will become immune. Its not like you can just keep handing out stronger and stronger ones. IF THIS RESOLUTIONS IS PASSED I WILL ASK IT REPELLED WITH A SAFE SEX REPULSION. Money better spent on prevention than keeping the dieing alive. There is no cure for AIDS and temporary cures only make the global perspective worse.

Also you have to look at the anti-biotics. The people using these will eventually need new kinds because the AIDS itself will become immune. Its not like you can just keep handing out stronger and stronger ones.


Um... You cannot take antibiotics for AIDS, as it is a virus, and antibiotics are only useful against bacteria. The HIV virus which causes AIDS has been known to mutate, so the treatments used for it are limited because it is difficult to fight something that changes constantly. Unfortunately, the most realistic way to defeat this disease would be the development of a successful vaccine, but that doesn't help the people already infected with it. Although this resolution has good intentions, there are far to many loopholes and it lacks accountability. I would vote for a resolution which ENCOURAGES nations to work together to combat AIDS, but mandating countries to fork over an undisclosed amount of money that is not accounted for, and having governments funnel money into dubious pharmaceutical companies isn't wise. I am reluctantly forced to vote no, citing the "symbolism over substance" defense.

Chair of the Har Akir Business Bureau
Prime Minister of the Borderlands
UN Delegate for the realm of Libertarian Paradise

You want to know why it's rare that you get aids from blood transfusions anymore? Because there has been a testing program to ensure that this does not happen. But there isn't a testing system everywhere. This is part of the reason why AIDs spread so fast in China. They mixed all the blood together thus making it all infected.


That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Blood doesn't work like that. There are several different blood-types, and if you give a person blood from a different type (except for O-), then they will die. Plain and simple. So, if you're mixing all the blood together, you're making a mish-mash of blood-types, and people will die. Not even the Chinese are so cavalier about human life.

Double post

You want to know why it's rare that you get aids from blood transfusions anymore? Because there has been a testing program to ensure that this does not happen. But there isn't a testing system everywhere. This is part of the reason why AIDs spread so fast in China. They mixed all the blood together thus making it all infected.


That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Blood doesn't work like that. There are several different blood-types, and if you give a person blood from a different type (except for O-), then they will die. Plain and simple. So, if you're mixing all the blood together, you're making a mish-mash of blood-types, and people will die. Not even the Chinese are so cavalier about human life.

Actually blood-supply mixing does happen in China, causing a rapid spread of AIDS. However they don't mix blood of different blood types. People will go into the clinic and donate blood. This blood is mixed in communal tanks organized according to blood type. After certain components of the blood are taken from this tank and given to the person who needs blood, the remaining unused blood components from the tank are reinjected into each donor. If one donor has AIDS, every donor who shared his common blood tank will also get AIDS, and so will the reciever of the donated blood. Even just knowing about this makes me cringe.

This following article is from http://www.howsthat.co.uk/01/02/010202.htm

"Farmers in China's central region have been subsidising their poor earnings by selling their own blood. They sell the blood to dealers who often reuse needles and mix blood products together. The results have been devastating and thousands of Chinese are thought to have contracted HIV, hepatitis C and other blood-borne viruses as a result.

In 1993 the Chinese Health Ministry introduced plans to export blood products. Middlemen, called blood heads, bought blood from farmers and sold it on to hospitals and blood banks. Blood heads removed the plasma from the blood and returned the rest to the seller. However, people with the same blood type were often linked to the same machine. So when they were given the rest of their blood back (for re-injection to enable them to give blood again sooner), they were getting blood from other people with the same blood type. The result is widespread infections."

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,

Here we go with teh robbing Peter to pay Paul again... It's bad enough to rob Peter to pay Paul, but robbing Peter to pay Paul... in another country? Moreover, AIDS medication doesnt actually get rid of the AIDS virus... it just keeps it in incubation... you still die eventaully which means that MORE people will be infected... and ultimately die. Even if you are a socialist and you disagree with everything I said, you should still vote AGAINST this resolution on the basis that it will lead to HIGHER AIDS infection rates, therefore MORE AIDS deaths.


TGM, I have personal assurance from the sponsor of this bill that all funds recieved under this Resolution will be voluntary. Would that change your opinion?

I am undecided myself on this issue.

I do see your responses as valid. My vote still stands a firm yes. Though it may be a futile gesture, to do nothing at all, when we have even the slightest chance of success, makes us worse than any of this despicable countries you mentioned. That is my comment. Good night.

People are dying right now in third world countries of easily curable diseases. Squandering our limited resources on temporarily and briefly extending and improving the lives of people for whom we have no real solution is, in my opinion, a less attractive option than saving those who can truly be saved. Further, although the use of AIDS drugs does reduce the per-exposure likelihood of transmission (or so I am told), it is at least a reasonable possibility that extending the lifetime of an HIV positive person with these drugs increases the per-lifetime (or, as I like to call it, the relevant) likelihood of transmission.

I enthusiastically support education initiatives, prevention initiatives, and efforts to make blood bank deposit testing more widespread and accurate, but I find the idea of mandating funding for the procurement of AIDS drugs for third world suffers repugnant. We have a responsibility to use our finite resources responsibly, and such an initiative is an unforgivable abdication of that responsibility.

I would love to have that warm and fuzzy feeling of offering comfort to these extremely unfortunate people, but our reality precludes us from doing so. I have also cast a sad "no" vote for this intiative.

Regardless of whether the "donations" would be voluntary or not, this resolution is still flawed on many accounts. But the simplest one should have ended up getting it deleted by the mods before it ever came to a general vote:

The category this resolution is placed in is enough to vote against it. It is listed under Social Justice, and therefore is "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." That has absolutely nothing to do with fighting AIDS. Unless you can think of a way that putting people on the doll fights a virus.

Actually, he is a moral individual and therefore is opposed to robbing Peter to pay Paul for any reason (except if Peter has committed some sort of transgression against Paul).

We see morality as consisting of doing everything humanly possible to stop this terrible epidemic, and in lessening its cruel effects on its victims. This "robbing Peter to pay Paul" argument is wearing rather thin. If private property were the ONLY ethical value, it might make sense. But human life is anterior to, and therefore superior to, private property.

Of course, current medicines only delay the inevitable death caused by AIDS, but it is not to much to hope that in the future--if we persevere--a cure might be found. Then those victims who are still around might very well thank us for having saved their lives "temporarily".

Ursoria gladly voted "yes" on this one.

I voted YES, TGM.

I see no probem, except with your logic.

Symbolism over substance...again.

Actually, he is a moral individual and therefore is opposed to robbing Peter to pay Paul for any reason (except if Peter has committed some sort of transgression against Paul).

We see morality as consisting of doing everything humanly possible to stop this terrible epidemic, and in lessening its cruel effects on its victims. This "robbing Peter to pay Paul" argument is wearing rather thin. If private property were the ONLY ethical value, it might make sense. But human life is anterior to, and therefore superior to, private property.

Of course, current medicines only delay the inevitable death caused by AIDS, but it is not to much to hope that in the future--if we persevere--a cure might be found. Then those victims who are still around might very well thank us for having saved their lives "temporarily".
Ursoria gladly voted "yes" on this one.

Wouldn't devoting those resources to research accelerate the discovery of a cure? I can accept someone deciding that their preferred strategy is a mixed approach as long as I know they've considered the alternatives, which including going whole hog on the prevention/cure pursuit approaches.

Here is my argument for devoting more resources to research and fewer to maintenance. If our goal were sustained achievement over time, then then the additional benefits of devoting more resources to research would quickly decrease as the quantity of resources devoted increased. However, the goal in AIDS research is to hit that one home run- we probably just need one fantastic breakthrough to beat this thing. So, devoting more resources to research means you can put more minds on the problem, and the more minds we have working on this problem, the better chance we have of making that one huge breakthrough.

The Incorporated States of Derigo has voted AGAINST it. AIDS research should be privatised and backed by independent supporters. There are enough rich bleeding hearts throughout the world that want to make a difference. Derigo would also like to state its belief that AIDS and other epidemics such as The Bubonic Plague(which wiped out 1/3rd of its resident population) are excellent methods of population control.

Though the Federation of Ostrava has voted FOR the resolution, we do feel that it is insufficient to just lower the price of the medical supplies needed and then sell it to affected contries. Instead, the medical supplies should be bought by an organisation under the auspices of ECOSOC (The Economic and Social Council) of the UN, so that these supplies are then distributed (for free) to the countries in need.


Douglas Hay
Minister of Sciences and Research
Federation of Ostrava

Frigben will be abstaining from any vote on this proposal; we have no qualms about contributing to a global fund, or any of the liberal junk other fellow UN members may come up with, and we do not object about eradicating diseases such as AIDS, but yet, we feel that this proposal is poorly worded and undeserving of a FOR vote. Good day.

I do see your responses as valid. My vote still stands a firm yes. Though it may be a futile gesture, to do nothing at all, when we have even the slightest chance of success, makes us worse than any of this despicable countries you mentioned. That is my comment. Good night.

People are dying right now in third world countries of easily curable diseases. Squandering our limited resources on temporarily and briefly extending and improving the lives of people for whom we have no real solution is, in my opinion, a less attractive option than saving those who can truly be saved. Further, although the use of AIDS drugs does reduce the per-exposure likelihood of transmission (or so I am told), it is at least a reasonable possibility that extending the lifetime of an HIV positive person with these drugs increases the per-lifetime (or, as I like to call it, the relevant) likelihood of transmission.

I enthusiastically support education initiatives, prevention initiatives, and efforts to make blood bank deposit testing more widespread and accurate, but I find the idea of mandating funding for the procurement of AIDS drugs for third world suffers repugnant. We have a responsibility to use our finite resources responsibly, and such an initiative is an unforgivable abdication of that responsibility.

I would love to have that warm and fuzzy feeling of offering comfort to these extremely unfortunate people, but our reality precludes us from doing so. I have also cast a sad "no" vote for this intiative.

I agree entirely with this statement. Three Cheers for Timbashi!

We can't even educate our own people, how are we going to go around educating third-worlders?

I propose that we endorse my resolution to force everyone to take a biology class instead!

Anyone else catch that?

Furthermore, it is possible to contract HIV through sharing unsafe needles (such as drug use). Adittionally, transmission through blood transfusion is rare because the precautions against it are staggering. Blood transfusion is not rare, most of America is suffering a shortage of usable blood. It occurs in many surgeries, in emergency cases, in cases of extreme blood-related illness, etc.

Also remember, that if this resolution passes,(If you are an evil/psychotic nation), you can just kill all your AIDS infected people, reducing the costs. This may sound sick and twisted... But hey I'm evil... And they're going to die anyways......

Actually, he is a moral individual and therefore is opposed to robbing Peter to pay Paul for any reason (except if Peter has committed some sort of transgression against Paul).

We see morality as consisting of doing everything humanly possible to stop this terrible epidemic, and in lessening its cruel effects on its victims. This "robbing Peter to pay Paul" argument is wearing rather thin. If private property were the ONLY ethical value, it might make sense. But human life is anterior to, and therefore superior to, private property.

Of course, current medicines only delay the inevitable death caused by AIDS, but it is not to much to hope that in the future--if we persevere--a cure might be found. Then those victims who are still around might very well thank us for having saved their lives "temporarily".
Ursoria gladly voted "yes" on this one.

Actually, we think a "mixed approach"--combining maintenance with working toward a cure--is probably best. The criterion we would adopt is to keep the human suffering associated with AIDS to an absolute minimum, and that would seem to involve both approaches.

A world that devotes trillions of dollars every year to armaments--and which has through a concerted effort put human beings on the moon--can surely afford to help poor people suffering with AIDS, while devoting sufficient resources to the kind of medical research needed for a cure.

Ursoria has a robust, free-enterprise economy with a very low tax rate--so we're hardly opposed to "capitalism". But capitalism, for us, is an economic system and not a religion or ideology. All the religion and ideology ever developed isn't worth the life of one child.

Wouldn't devoting those resources to research accelerate the discovery of a cure? I can accept someone deciding that their preferred strategy is a mixed approach as long as I know they've considered the alternatives, which including going whole hog on the prevention/cure pursuit approaches.

Here is my argument for devoting more resources to research and fewer to maintenance. If our goal were sustained achievement over time, then then the additional benefits of devoting more resources to research would quickly decrease as the quantity of resources devoted increased. However, the goal in AIDS research is to hit that one home run- we probably just need one fantastic breakthrough to beat this thing. So, devoting more resources to research means you can put more minds on the problem, and the more minds we have working on this problem, the better chance we have of making that one huge breakthrough.

There is already a topic against this resolution, here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81092). Hence, iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum Moderator