NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't get me wrong, Doctors Without Borders is a great program, but should a military force be compelled to let in *all* doctors? What if the enemy wants to send in their army medical corp? How do we know that they won't use this as a way to get troops in? Or to relay information from captured / embattled soldiers back to the government?

This resolution is too vague and must be voted down.

Dear nation,

I feel that this resolution cannot be passed. If the resolution is passed, it would mean that in times of war medicine could be sold to the nations that we are trying to fight. In effect, you are trying to kill people and trying to heal them at the same time. This is why is it wrong for the resolution currently at vote to be passed. Blocking medicine may in the short term cause problems, but in the long term it will make the war shorter, and therefore there will be less injuries and deaths. While the resolution seems to be saving lives, all it is doing is making the war last longer, and therefore actually is accomplishing the opposite of its aim.

Yours in hope,
TomPhil,
President of Tomathon and Founder of Freedom Isle

I am instructing our delegate to the United Nations to vote against the current issue regarding access to medical supplies and treatment in time of war.

As the previous honourable member has stated...
allowing an enemy access to medical supplies and treatment can serve to prolong a war and cause additional death and destruction

It is counter productive to wage war and then render assistance to the enemy or allow such assistance to be rendered by outside parties, who may or may not have their own political agendas.

My weapons are "medical supplies..."

Some drugs can also be a threat. That can lead to an increased amount of chemical and/or biological weapon development.

The idea that doctors, those who are peacekeepers and healers only, should be banned from helping to stop the death of citizens should be banned from any place is inconcievable! Think if you were dying, and the only person who could help you was banned from the area because of political affiliation, what would you feel?
Think on it.
Kristilin

Not only is it dangerous for non-combatants to be in a war zone (after all, if a war is going to be fought, why should New Clarkhall's soldiers have to protect some other nation's doctors and risk their lives doing so?), but it is also dangerous in principle to allow any group, unfettered access to a battlefield.

It would only be a short time before nations started disguising their spies or combatants as medics and using them to infiltrate enemy camps.

As for allowing medication to move unfettered....that in itself is rather sketchy. After all, marijuana is legal in some nations. Does that mean the drug trade can be classified as trade in 'medicinal substances' and thus immune from interference in nations that DO ban that drug?

We are in the midst of regional debate on this, but will almost certainly vote NO.

Please, all you liberals, quit trying to tell me how I can run my nation state. Leave me alone and quit proposing UN resolutions that effect me.

I was a little torn on this front, but voted for in the end.

Organisations like the Red Cross, Medicins sans Frontieres and the WHO do a great deal of essential work within combat zones and should not be impeded.

if you dont like being affected by liberal agenda, leave the UN. it's a fact of membership, that agendas are going to be forced on your nation

Well, I'm a liberal...and I have problems with this Resolution...so don't paint us ALL with that broad brush.

My problems are as follows:

First, this is very vague.
Second, what's to stop terrorists from disguising themselves as doctors to get in...and then wrecking havoc once they are in? kinda like a Trojan Horse for the modern age?
Third...there's no penalties outlined for those who abuse such laws...as in the manner above described
Fourth, There are several nations with who we have broken off diplomatic relations, and with whom we restrict ALL trade. And we damn well intend to continue to restict all trade to those nations.
And, quite frankly...we hope those nations with whom we have broken diplomatic relations...and with whom we have restricted trade...we sincerely HOPE they get into a war, and get slaughtered! Why should we want to help our sworn enemies?

The idea that doctors, those who are peacekeepers and healers only, should be banned from helping to stop the death of citizens should be banned from any place is inconcievable! Think if you were dying, and the only person who could help you was banned from the area because of political affiliation, what would you feel?
Think on it.
Kristilin

That is why I pay my military doctors.

Labrador,

It's because to gain from a war, you need to win not only the war itself but the peace which follows. If you block medical supplies and expertise that's one sure way to lead to a poorer public reception of your armies and more of a mess when you find yourself in control of the region, be it as a conquered territory or a region held under temporary mandate.

It is true this is a complex affair, one’s natural instincts are humanitarian but at the same time one cannot dismiss the troubling security concerns raised…much thought will have to go into this one before voting can be decided upon…lucky it wont be me having to do because I’m duty bound as Delegate to vote with according to my region! :lol: :wink: 8)

Blamgolian medics, when in foreign countries, don't usually interfere with combat situations, although if attacked, we will certainly defend ourselves. We tend to focus more on the refugees and civilian populace as a whole, and let the military medics of a given nation concern themselves with their own.

In addition, we are bound by honor NOT to attempt any espionage while on peacekeeping or medicinal missions.

There are better ways to use this legislation, it is just that the author hasn't considered it.

Please, all you liberals, quit trying to tell me how I can run my nation state. Leave me alone and quit proposing UN resolutions that effect me.
If you don't want to be affected by resolutions, get out of the UN!

Well, I'm a liberal...and I have problems with this Resolution...so don't paint us ALL with that broad brush.

My problems are as follows:

First, this is very vague.
Second, what's to stop terrorists from disguising themselves as doctors to get in...and then wrecking havoc once they are in? kinda like a Trojan Horse for the modern age?
Third...there's no penalties outlined for those who abuse such laws...as in the manner above described
Fourth, There are several nations with who we have broken off diplomatic relations, and with whom we restrict ALL trade. And we damn well intend to continue to restict all trade to those nations.
And, quite frankly...we hope those nations with whom we have broken diplomatic relations...and with whom we have restricted trade...we sincerely HOPE they get into a war, and get slaughtered! Why should we want to help our sworn enemies?
All of those concerns are valid, but they're not enough to stop me voting FOR on this issue.

Please, all you liberals, quit trying to tell me how I can run my nation state. Leave me alone and quit proposing UN resolutions that effect me.

With an attitude like that it's a bit pointless being in the UN...

I would just briefly like to say that this is perhaps one of the most embarassing proposals I have seen. Not only is the proposal vague, but may also be counter-productive. Conceptually it makes little to no sense.

"Not having access to modern medicine and modern medical supplies can cause unnecessary suffering and death. "

Indeed it does. Being in a war can cause suffering and death. How would each of you describe war? I suggest you think about that and then consider the proposal. What motives are behind waging war and what motives are behind this proposal? Are they not diametrically opposed?

Because of this juxtaposition countless paths may be taken. A number of vastly different conclusions may be drawn. This proposal is vague, flawed, and is a disgrace to support.

The Armed Republic of Michopolis would agree that while providing humanitarian aid may not nessecarily be a bad thing...this resolution leaves too much option for abuse by devious nations, as has been outlined prior to my posting. Therefore, we will be voting against this foolhardy resolution and would encourage others to do so as well.

Civilians get injured too!!

This proposal is directed toward civilian doctors and medicine. Preventing these people and medicines from moving about as needed can cause disastrous results among civilian casualties of war.

Aegonia chooses to vote FOR the current proposal. It is perfectly understandable to not allow military troops and medics to cross your borders. That is still done within the bounds of this proposal.

Nobody who is unaffiliated with military or government who wants to care for sick and wounded should be prevented from doing so. That's what this proposal is about.

Greetings:

The Commonwealth of Oakeshottland has voted against this measure currently before the United Nations. As many have already pointed out, this current resolution is vague to say the least. By creating such an umbrella for any group bringing medicine or banning any embargos on "medicine," this resolution takes a far too simplistic view of the dangers inherent in such actions.

Were there a board or some group of oversight to make distinctions between, say, the Red Cross on one hand and virulent terrorist "medical" associations on the other, perhaps this would be acceptable. The current wording, however, allows for no distinctions. Moreover, as already pointed out, modern medicine can be of dual-use. They can be used to heal, but also to harm (through, say, biological weaponry). By not even considering the dangers involved, the dangers inherent in the resolution are obvious. Allowing anyone claiming to be a medic into a war zone would allow for external, non-traditional forces to get a foot-hold in a war (be it a nonstate terrorist group or a nation's fellow-travelers enagaging in a proxy war), while making no distinctions in dual-use medicines and procedures may allow for devestating levels of destruction.

The Commonwealth would support an international convention which would allow for medical treatment in war, provided these dangers are met. Indeed, in the Commonwealth's rules of military engagement, our medics are to help opponents killed in war, as much as circumstances and materials allow. With careful consideration of the relevant issues, a convention could be passed safely and effectively - this resolution, however, cannot ensure either saefty or effiecency. The Commonwealth votes against.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

The Jurian States understands that civilians get hurt in times of war, however, we must with great reluctance vote against the proposed resolution. The proposal is to vague, any group with medical supplies can use it to gain access to any country at war and they may not even intend to use the medical supplies that they are carrying to save lives. Also we encourage other nations to vote against the proposal, why should the nations of the world have to accept a resolution that will jeopardize their security when they can oppose it and then create a resolution that will only require nations to provide medical aid to civilian populations.

Well it is still your choice not to allow doctors into your own country to help your own people. This resolution is written from the opposite perspective. You are not allowed to charge extra for medicinal exports or visas for doctors going to coutries at war.

I think a lot of people missed that point.

Per the ruling of the Senate of the Most Holy Republic of Eredron, our UN envoy has voted against the resolution.

Voting this proposal down will just keep things the way they are right now. Not any worse then befor the proposal even appeared, but no better. If the author could do a little more thinking, clarify a few points, make it more secure...because I'm sure there are generals/leaders who would disguise troops or hired men to pose as doctors only to use their immunity from restriction to kill enemy troops, officers, maybe even plant some c-4 or something like that.

I'll vote yes when this resolution is revised a bit. Right now it seems like a first draft.

Civilians get injured too!!

This proposal is directed toward civilian doctors and medicine. Preventing these people and medicines from moving about as needed can cause disastrous results among civilian casualties of war.

Aegonia chooses to vote FOR the current proposal. It is perfectly understandable to not allow military troops and medics to cross your borders. That is still done within the bounds of this proposal.

Nobody who is unaffiliated with military or government who wants to care for sick and wounded should be prevented from doing so. That's what this proposal is about.

This is correct - this is the perspective I intended when I wrote and submitted this UN Resolution. This resolution is NOT a carte blanche allowing militaries to sneak military operatives into rival nations for "medical purposes" - this is why I specified that doctors should not be prevented from "entering the region to treat the wounded, sick, and dying." The resolution only requires that nations allow civilian doctors to go in and heal, it does NOT require nations to allow military medical staff into a war zone to perform military functions.

As for those who argue that being in a war can also cause suffering and death - yes, this is true. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the suffering and death. That's my goal here - to make sure that civilians who are injured or who become ill during the course of a war have access to medicine and treatment to heal them. It is not a complete juxtaposition to make war more humane. It is completely possible to wage (and win) a war while trying to minimize the suffering you inflict on your opponent's civilian population. That's what I'm addressing here. This resolution is about affirming that civilians should have access to medical treatment not just in peacetime, but in wartime as well.

I would just briefly like to say that this is perhaps one of the most embarassing proposals I have seen. Not only is the proposal vague, but may also be counter-productive. Conceptually it makes little to no sense.

"Not having access to modern medicine and modern medical supplies can cause unnecessary suffering and death. "

Indeed it does. Being in a war can cause suffering and death. How would each of you describe war? I suggest you think about that and then consider the proposal. What motives are behind waging war and what motives are behind this proposal? Are they not diametrically opposed?

Because of this juxtaposition countless paths may be taken. A number of vastly different conclusions may be drawn. This proposal is vague, flawed, and is a disgrace to support.

We disagree that the proposal is counter-productive. We feel that efforts to maintain our humanity during times of inhumane behavior should be supported, and that proposals that attempt to institutionalize this ideal should be applauded and built upon. We feel the spirit of this proposal is worthwhile, and that criticisms in regard to its level of specificity can be overlooked. We will furthermore argue that proposals should not attempt to meet a standard of specificity; a proposal that is overly specific has the effect of tying hands as it moves out of the UN and into implementation.

Well, I Representative and Founder of The Seven Corners of the Earth, and Emporer of The Holy Republic of the Seven Winds do vote against this measure. My or the enemies civilians should not be out in the battle field. And, if I were to be fighting a Non UN member, they would not treat my wounded as lightly as I would treat theirs. In interest of the well-being of my country and region, do stand against this measure.

This resolution is madness. In a time of peace you are allowed to embargo a nation with respect to medical supplies, but in a time of war are required to allow your enemy access to your pharmaceutical industries?! In addition you would be barred from stopping doctors from your own nation from aiding and abetting the enemy?!

“Therefore we propose that in the course of war, no nation make embargoes restricting the sale of medicine or medical supplies.”

Why would you allow your country to sell medical supplies to a country that you are at war with? This is akin to aiding and abetting the enemy. In war you have an obligation to protect your own nations citizens not the enemies. Allowing an enemy access to your pharmaceutical products allows the enemy to continue to fight and kill more of your own citizens.

“We also propose that any controlling authority, be it a government, a rebellion, or an occupying force, make no restrictions in times of war preventing doctors from entering the retion to treat the sick, wounded, and dying.”

Once again this is aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. There are only so many doctors to go around. Why let them serve the enemy? This resolution is only in effect during war, when the world is at peace you would be allowed to restrict the sale of medical supplies to any nation? Also in times of peace you would be allowed to prevent your doctors from entering a nation to treat the sick?

This resolution is madness! I beg the member nations to oppose this resolution in its current form. In a time of war a nation should not be forced to help the enemy. Why would you help the enemy when they seek to kill you?

The devil is in the details. While the title of this resolution “No Embargoes on Medicine” sounds simple enough the details reveal something far more sinister. I beg the member nations to read this resolution again and vote NO to aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.

"We disagree that the proposal is counter-productive. We feel that efforts to maintain our humanity during times of inhumane behavior should be supported, and that proposals that attempt to institutionalize this ideal should be applauded and built upon. We feel the spirit of this proposal is worthwhile, and that criticisms in regard to its level of specificity can be overlooked. We will furthermore argue that proposals should not attempt to meet a standard of specificity; a proposal that is overly specific has the effect of tying hands as it moves out of the UN and into implementation."


The notion is entertaining but doesn't escape absurdity in nature. Efforts to maintain "humanity" during times of "inhumane behavior?" Any assumptions being made here are nothing more than assumptions, and seem to follow in the same tradition of the proposal. Vague, meaningless, empty words. The spirit may be worthwhile, but any "overlooking" because of specificity will do nothing more than pave the way for further complications. When and institution overlooks such things for the 'spirit' of things, there is no end to the trouble that will follow. Such an all-embracing refusal to focus one's point and tie up loose ends is a weak, ineffective practice that will make everyone's job harder. It should have no place here, and the fact that it is being defended is sad enough.

trully i dont see why not vote for this issue...
-if the opposing country wants to spend its own dollers to heal you WOUNDED then let it.
-yes i agree that it should not be abused...and can only be used with midication legal in the country that you are helping.
-only the people wounded in war efferts, and civilians only, should be healed...not soilders that u use kill

Mecha Insanity votes against.

It is too vauge, and their is easy options for others to abuse this.

If people think that neutrality medics can operate in a warzone, then they are mistaken. If doctors, with full basic medical supplies were to operate in warzones they would need a full protection from UNPKF. The Red Cross is no-longer a sign of neutrality, but an easy target for supplies.

Lets not forget, if your realy educated, you can make efective ICBM warheads from Atheleate's foot powder.

I have voted no for this, but would welcome a more detailed revision of the proposal.

The Jurian States understands that the proposal was written in good faith but leaving so vague allows others to twist the details to serve their interests. Whats to stop political leaders that dislike my nation from getting my nation sanction because I refuse to provide doctors to aid the military of a government that I'm at war with or keep agents of a hostile nation in the guise of civilian doctors from entering my nation to provide informational aid to the rebellion leaders? Nothing because the proposal has no written specifications on who can enter and who they can treat. We will endorse the proposal if it is written so that everyone understands that civilians are the only ones who are affected by this proposal which is how it should have been written in the first place.

This proposal is pointless really. Think of it in a war you kill people that you are against, which is really the point of a war. But to have them come in with doctors and medicine to help the enemy is stupid. That just makes it harder for you to kill them and really it hurts people more because you get hurt your in pain then your healed and you get shot again putting you through more pain. It's like endless torture untill your killed. Why not just let the war reign then when its over send supplies to the people who need them. Giving enemies medicine and doctors is stupid. Plus i agree enemies could mask their best assassin in doctors clothing and come in and kill you. Thats why this proposal should be rejected.

This is correct - this is the perspective I intended when I wrote and submitted this UN Resolution. This resolution is NOT a carte blanche allowing militaries to sneak military operatives into rival nations for "medical purposes" - this is why I specified that doctors should not be prevented from "entering the region to treat the wounded, sick, and dying." The resolution only requires that nations allow civilian doctors to go in and heal, it does NOT require nations to allow military medical staff into a war zone to perform military functions.

How can you or I tell the difference from someone claiming to be a civilian doctor and being a militant from an actual doctor?

Sometimes the way to cure the patient is to end their misery...

As for those who argue that being in a war can also cause suffering and death - yes, this is true. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the suffering and death.

Well, if I pose as a doctor and completely destroy the opponent by, let's say, poisoning them, then doesn't that ultimately "minimize the suffering"?

That's my goal here - to make sure that civilians who are injured or who become ill during the course of a war have access to medicine and treatment to heal them. It is not a complete juxtaposition to make war more humane. It is completely possible to wage (and win) a war while trying to minimize the suffering you inflict on your opponent's civilian population. That's what I'm addressing here. This resolution is about affirming that civilians should have access to medical treatment not just in peacetime, but in wartime as well.

Are you proposing free medicine and healthcare? That is another matter entirely.

If it isn't a free program, does that mean that if nation X and nation Y are fighting, I could ship all my doctors to the war to heal their wounded and charge them a premium? That could prove to be very profitable.

Civilians get injured too!!

This proposal is directed toward civilian doctors and medicine. Preventing these people and medicines from moving about as needed can cause disastrous results among civilian casualties of war.

Aegonia chooses to vote FOR the current proposal. It is perfectly understandable to not allow military troops and medics to cross your borders. That is still done within the bounds of this proposal.

Nobody who is unaffiliated with military or government who wants to care for sick and wounded should be prevented from doing so. That's what this proposal is about.

Great. So a fundamentalist not officially offiliated with a military of an enemy state who got some fake diploma from an online university can walk into my nation and relay information from POWs back to the enemy? That's wonderful.

War is awful. People die. The fact that it is awful makes it all the more important that the war be stopped sooner. If war isn't awful, what reason do nations have to stop the war? The fact of the matter is that we cannot simply allow our first instinct of wanting to do good override our rational judgement of the situation. This proposal does just that.

Actualy...

I'll see if I have the literature on a similar point made in the UNGA in the 70's ofer the neutrality and rightful demands on private medical organisations, such as The International Red Cross.


In the GC, in the section of the medical code of practice in a war situation, it is said that all medics, including military staff only wear the red cross band if they obey to all the points, and one was about how a medic treats the enemy as one of its own, and also the enemy is not allowed to target any person vehicle, building pertaining with the Red cross emblem.

After engagements over the world in the 50's and 60's the UN saw the trend of medics leaving the enemy for dead and also forces openly targeting Red Cross units. A few Member States tried to make a similar proposal, but it was never given an audience since there were so many objections, since it would have to be enforced, hence a full UN investment into the combat zone on both sides and in the center, basicly marshaling a warzone, with was deemed as un-peacefull for the UN to pass.

If/when I find the debate and other articles, you hopefuly see why this proposal is flawed...

OMG, what am I doing? hehe, I worked closely with UN members, before. 8)

Well, I guess I would have to say 'Good try' to the autor of this semi-thought out proposal. The concept is sound. Don't get me wrong on that. However, it IS a bit much to ask that countries, in a time of war, be barred from embargoing medicinal supplies that could go to aid the enemy and said countries may, even, have people of their own aiding the enemy through medical work of their own.
The general idea you have is on the right track. It may need to be re-written however. It seems that most of the countries who disagree with this proposal don't have much problem with organizations such as Red Cross, WHO, Doctors Without Borders, et al. In the re-worded proposal I recommend that THESE organizations, those who are in their field of work because they see the pain and strife war causes, be given the protection of anti-embargo(ization?) Well, given protection anyway.
The author obviously cares for those in pain and would dearly love to see the world's suffering end. I don't believe, however, they foresaw glaring problems such as those mentioned by my contemporaries. ie: 1. countries at war could end up supplying, unwittingly, medicine and supplies to the very country thwey are at war with. 2. This causes the agony of a long and drawn out bloodier war. 3. The enemy could very well send in shock troops, sleepers, etc. along with the doctors.
No, if this is to work the organizations involved, such as those mentioned above, needs must be overseen by a co-op or conglomeration of some sort. Call it a oh, I don't know, a U.N. There you go.

To be blunt:

Isn't the point of war to kill enough of the other side's people to make them give up??

I would allow medicine to get to civilians caught in the inevitable crossfire of war, but, come on, people. It's war. Jeez, grow some stones, people.

Labrador,

It's because to gain from a war, you need to win not only the war itself but the peace which follows. If you block medical supplies and expertise that's one sure way to lead to a poorer public reception of your armies and more of a mess when you find yourself in control of the region, be it as a conquered territory or a region held under temporary mandate.

I agree. Which is why I have encouraged our Delegate in Area 51 to vote NO on this Resolution, and include a note suggesting some rewrites to clarify the concerns I raise. When those concerns are addressed, I would then support it.
But, as it is currently, it is too vague, and too full of potential security loopholes. My vote remains NO.
Not because I'm against people who need help...far from!! But because of the very real concerns I have regarding the potential for abuse of this policy, were it to be adopted in it's current form.

Civilians get injured too!!

This proposal is directed toward civilian doctors and medicine. Preventing these people and medicines from moving about as needed can cause disastrous results among civilian casualties of war.

Aegonia chooses to vote FOR the current proposal. It is perfectly understandable to not allow military troops and medics to cross your borders. That is still done within the bounds of this proposal.

Nobody who is unaffiliated with military or government who wants to care for sick and wounded should be prevented from doing so. That's what this proposal is about.

But it does not specify that...Nor does it specificall y outline penalties and punishments for abuse of the policy...i.e. an enmy nation or terrorists...disgusining themselves as non-military doctors...and thus, getting themselves firmly entrenched into your territory.
As I've said...with some clarifications and a few provisions added, I'd support this. As it currently stands, my vote remains NO

A few simple revisions to this bill is all it would take to make it pass muster.

Revision I: No medic of another nation may commit espionage against the nation to whom aid is being offered. Those who breach this rule will be subject to that land's punishment, on the condition that clear and present evidence is provided that such was committed, and that competent (though not perfect) legal council be provided.

Revision II: Unless a soldier is seriously wounded, in accordance to medical diagnosis, no civilian may treat a soldier. Again, if the situation leaves no chance to wait for a combat medic, then the doctor may do so.

Revision III: All Civilians shall be trained to defend themselves if the time comes. They may, at their option, train in nonlethal weapons in regards to the Hippocratic Oath, or they may be allowed to undergo weapons and tactical training if it comes to it. Weapons for these medics will be provided by their home country.

This is far from perfect, and I know this. Feel free to add to the revisions I have presented, and TM me with your results.

If we treat them, can we keep them? They can plow my desert.

A few simple revisions to this bill is all it would take to make it pass muster.

Revision I: No medic of another nation may commit espionage against the nation to whom aid is being offered. Those who breach this rule will be subject to that land's punishment, on the condition that clear and present evidence is provided that such was committed, and that competent (though not perfect) legal council be provided.
I don't think this is necessary. Your letting a Dr. into your country. If that Dr turns out to be a spy then the entered on a false pretense, and are subject to whatever punishment your nation applies to such conduct.


Revision II: Unless a soldier is seriously wounded, in accordance to medical diagnosis, no civilian may treat a soldier. Again, if the situation leaves no chance to wait for a combat medic, then the doctor may do so.
I would think this would go againse the Hippocratic oath.


Revision III: All Civilians shall be trained to defend themselves if the time comes. They may, at their option, train in nonlethal weapons in regards to the Hippocratic Oath, or they may be allowed to undergo weapons and tactical training if it comes to it. Weapons for these medics will be provided by their home country.
The People's Republic of Schim finds this revision completely unacceptable. Guns are outlawed in our nation. We would not allow anyone to enter out country with a gun.

with respect to the authour of this resolution

to even consider that it is possible to wage war in a humane manner is both naive and dangerous...

WAR IS A VERY MESSY BUSINESS...THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT A THING TO BE AVOIDED

to win the peace you must first win the war and with victory comes the oppurtunity to rebuild and offer comfort to those who opposed

that said...it is the Sacred Duty of every citizen to bring a speedy decision to any war in order to minimize the suffering on both sides

ONCE AGAIN...WE URGE ALL THINKING NATIONS TO DEFEAT THIS ILL CONCIEVED RESOLUTION

We need an independent international agency for these missions, one whose operations are constantly open to inspection, one which earns universal trust. It should not be too dependent on any one nation or bloc for financial support, either.
Such an agency would deserve widespread approval, since it would benefit all sides.

This allowing of medicines and doctors into a nation is basically giving carte blanch to other states to interfere with the operation of another. This could set up all kinds of potential influx of spies, inciting of rebellion and just plain causing unnecessary and far deadlier problems within a host of nations. The resolution should be reworded to address these issues and more. the idea and concept is a good one, but the details should be carefully worked out and studied. otherwise, even the nations with the best of intentions could find themselves on the pointy end of the well-intentioned sword, as it were. It just needs a little work before it should be approved simply based upon "good intentions" and naivete. I encourage an absolute no vote at the present time. Once it is redrafted, then perhaps it could be adopted for the benefit of all nations.

This bill would serve no purpose other than to lengthen any armed conflict. The purpose of armed conflict is to kill the enemy. By allowing your docotors to treat your enemy you are giving the enemy soldiers more opportunity to inflict casualties upon your own troops. To do this is to commit treason against your own people.

However, I will say that post conflict humanitarian aid for the citizens of your enemy is a fine and noble thing. As long as there is a sufficient UN presence to guarentee that the supplies that you are sending are not being used to resupply your enemies troops.

I have just one thing to say about this issue.

Why strengthen your enemies with medicine during a war? Isn't the whole idea of War to exterminate your enemy? Yes there will be civilian casualties but that's neglectable for the greater good.

My vote is a definate "NO"

In accepting this issue you are putting another countries people before the saftey of your own. That in itself is insanity. If you are going to go to war you better put all that you can into the war. Otherwise why are you even fighting. That may include stoping any trade realtions involving food medicine and other goods. If you have to left a few people from another country die to save some from yours so be it. Any country that does not try and provide the best for its people doesn't deserve the honor of being a country

this cannot be done. war is war. in real life nobody would want their enemy to win. this basic rule of politics cannot be violated by the un. thats why i voted against

The Holy Empire Of Hokuten has voted AGAINST this proposal. As many other have said, it is much too vague, and soldiers disguised as doctors, or poisoned medicines, or any number of things in possible with this proposal.

Also, even if the doctors aren't disguised soldiers, I'm sure they will tell their nation's ruler (whether they choose to or not) of the enemy's defenses and such forth. I for one would not let the opportunity go to waste.

Also, what if my Hokuten Knights are up against a nation not of the UN? I must allow his doctors to enter my nation to heal HIS people whereas my people must suffer and die if he wishes it? This is a completly foolish proposal and I will be in the process of convincing my UN delegate the same.

Too vague and ambiguous. Gets 64 no votes from TD.

Although I am not a member of the UN, this is a clear reason why I left.
This is an extremely broad resolution, which will most likely be passed, because people look and go "hey, medical help, yay!" Something mentioned earlier was that if your going to attack someone, then you should be have the respect to help the other sides wounded, well, what if your BEING ATTACKED?

Although I am not a member of the UN, this is a clear reason why I left.
This is an extremely broad resolution, which will most likely be passed, because people look and go "hey, medical help, yay!" Something mentioned earlier was that if your going to attack someone, then you should be have the respect to help the other sides wounded, well, what if your BEING ATTACKED?

This is an issue that tugs at all our hearts...medical help on the battlefield for soldiers and civilians alike...who can argue that?

Others before me have argued the point eloquently...I will second their concerns about 'sleepers' and the opportunity to use medicine as a weapon. It seems to me that this proposal has merit....but needs a lot of work.

For the moment, Little orange kittens votes no----but we would like to see a revision that includes safeguards against the use of medicine as a weapon. We would reconsider our position should such a proposal be made.

this may or may not have been already posted previous to this one, but voting no is the obviouse choice. This could be used against us greatly. Ever heard of sneaking in? Disguise an enemy soilder as a docter and WHAM! a6ttacked from the inside. Another thing. When people die and get injured, dont wars end? Well, Keep healing the soilders and civilians...the war will last forever! ANOTHER thing. Isnt weed legal in some places. And isnt weed concidered a drug? Well, there you go! issuing weed to your soldiers...so basicly what im trying to say is: VOTE NO!!!

Ugh, I don't know why I am bothering.

Where does this resolution say anything about letting people into your country? It doesn't. The only thing this resolution mentions is selling medicines and services to other countries. It simply says that you cannot further tax or embargo any medicinal exports to another country because that country has entered into war (and would need those supplies more - taking advantage). That country's war may have nothing to do with you. If the war was with you, you would have no reason to raise tariffs - you would just stop selling them supplies.

Smuggling doctor/spies has nothing to do with this.

Where does this resolution say anything about letting people into your country?...make no restrictions in times of war preventing doctors from entering the (region) to treat the sick, wounded, and dying.
Oops... my mistake. I need to re-evaluate this.

NFGone
ANOTHER thing. Isnt weed legal in some places. And isnt weed concidered a drug? Well, there you go! issuing weed to your soldiers. . .
This is also a valid point too, what one country may consider an illegal drug may be perfectely legal in another country. This proposal would also allow individuals to violate their countries drug laws during times of war. So besides adding on safeguards to provent the proposal from being abused by sleeper and medical supplies from being misused, it would also need to be set so that any drug considered illegal in one country can not be brought even during times of war.

"entering the region to treat the wounded, sick, and dying."

Well first of all you haven't defined the words: treat, wounded, sick, & dying. There for since these words are now open to intrpritation and since all nations might not believe in the hipocratic(sp?) oath treatment could mean putting a person "out of their missery." Secondly from the very moment the egg joins the sperm that person or entity (what every your view maybe) is getting closer to death. So if some "doctor" wanted to "treat" a "dying" patient he could arguably do so by shooting them in the head. After all they are now no longer dying and their body is no longer in any pain.

Thirdly there is no mention as to what qualifies as a doctor and it is also not stated anywhere as to what kind of doctor it needs to be. You also have to take into consideration that the person being sent over might not be recognized as a doctor in that nation. (Hey I found a loophole)

Next time you write a resolution make sure that it is somthing that would impose the same standards on everybody regardless of their local definitions or standards.

Well, it looks like enough morons are going to pass this piece of shit Resolution, so I think we can leave it open to individual interpretation, and live with it long enough for one of us to write an over-ride Proposal...and SPECIFICALLY STATE WITHIN IT that this Resolution supercedes the previous.
Meanwhile, we will have to live with this ill-thought piece of garbage, because too many stupid people don't really THINK about these things...as someone else pointed out...a bunch of morons look and say "yay, free medicine!!" and vote for it without considering the ramafications or potential for abuse.
So, let's all kick this football around, pick it apart, find the loopholes, and then, if y'all want, I'll be happy to wrote a Proposal that overrides the current piece of trash, and addresses our concerns.
This really is an issue that pulls at the heartstrings...none of us opposed to this bill wants to see suffering and death...but we also do not want to lay ourselves open to attackers, spies, poisoned medicine, any number of potential abuses.
Yet, because we oppose it...those who don't think seem to want to label us "monsters."
None of us opposed wants to see suffering and death, I don't think. but there are enough valid concerns here that this Resolution ought to get voted down, and I'm amazed it's passing...especially by the huge margin it currently is.
Or, if someone else wants to write the proposal, I'm okay with that too.
But, before ANYONE proposes, let's have an open Forum here where everyone can state their concerns, and see how we can best craft a Resolution that addresses most, if not all, of the valid concerns herein enumerated....and just live with the fact that this hunk of shit is gonna pass, and for now, we will have to live with it, until we can fix it with a better Resolution.

Here's my contribution to the new Proposal...

Article 1. Should it be discovered and proved that any person has entered a warring nation under the auspices of the War Medical Act, as a doctor...and is engaged in any type of espionage (spying, reporting on troop movements, etc.) or engages in any combat activity, they lose their status as a "doctor" under the auspices of the War Medicine Act, and local provisions of the affected nation for dealing with espionage and spies may then be enforced. This may include imprisonment, deportation, or even execution of the individual in question who has abused the provisions of the War Medicine Act.

Article 2. No nation at war with another should be forced to supply his enemy with either doctors or medicines...this Act applies only to doctors and medicines coming from nations not directly involved in the conflict.

Article 3: All medical supplies that can enter a nation at war most be considered legal medical supplies and all doctors who enter that country most obey is laws on medical practice. For example if a nation outlaws pot, then no doctor from another country can bring in pot to treat the wounded during times of war. Also if it is illegal to amputate a body in a country then doctors from other nations can not use that medical practice when they enter the country.

Now if you will excuse me I have to revise my amendments proposal to the Global Aids Initiative so that they will pass by the liberals with no common sense and still reduce the economic damage that it can cause to other nations.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Civilians get injured too!!

Nobody who is unaffiliated with military or government who wants to care for sick and wounded should be prevented from doing so. That's what this proposal is about.


This argument seems so fair and positive, but it is naive. When at war, nations must control who moves where. It is a matter of security for the nations at war and for the medical professionals who want to move around without the knowlege or coordination of the militaries which are dropping bombs all around them.

If they want to be heros, let them. But, we should not enact laws with limit the sovereignty of nations especially at war.

BTW, it is common for the sovereignty of a nation to increase rather than decrease during times of war. The United States has provisions for Martial Law which suspend the regular jurisdiction of the Constitution and restrict fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Abraham Lincoln put Martial Law in effect during the Civil War and similar despensations were in effect during every other war. That is what the draft is--a suspension of freedoms for the sake of the good fight.

No International body should attempt to restrain a nation's sovereignty during time of war, lest that body lose all credibility.

This Proposal against Medical Embargos in time of War is only superficially positive. It doesn't make sense and reduces the value of international cooperation toward peace.

VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION. CHANGE YOUR VOTE IF YOU HAVE TO!!!

I have posted a new Proposal, The War Medicine Act, as an addendum to The recently-passed No Embargoes On Medicine Resolution, in order to address the concerns I, and other nations have expressed. Please have a look at it, and endorse it!