NationStates Jolt Archive

I am against the UN proposal "No Embargoes on Medicine" because it fails to stipulate that governments receiving medical shipments in times of war must provide care to all its citizens equally, and not just to military units (whether engaged in the conflict or not).

...that the loudest shout of support for this proposal is the fact that no one is having to shout their support. In fact, no one is discussing it at all. Clearly, we have struck upon a favorable goal.

I am voting against this proposal.

My nation has a very efficient and effective Food and Drug Administration. We do not allow drugs into the country or sold to our citizens without thorough testing and approval from our FDA first.

More importantly we require all medical professionals to undergo routine testing in order to make sure they are competent at their professions.

This law will allow foreign doctors, in time of war, to circumvent our own health care laws. Non-Licensed doctors can enter the country and use illegal, possibly harmful and experimental drugs under this law because this mandate does not stipulate that such doctors must be subject to local regulations.

In time of war, I will instruct my military that all UNAUTHORIZED medical personel are to be considered trespassers on our soil, and will be escorted from our territory or be considered enemy combatants.

I think medicine is very good and that all people should have unlimited access to it especially at times of war. It helps to numb the pain a bit. Send me all your medicine and vote in favor of this proposal.

The Great and Glorious
Tunashirt :twisted:

I am voting for the proposal.

First of all, medicine should be freely distirbuted to those wealthy or poor, in time of war or not.
Second, the positive use for medicine practice goes without saying. I do not condone illegal practice of medicine in my nation.
Last, medicine is a good tool for the public, not only to heal the sick, but to sustain life.

Several of you miss the point of my original post, which is that the proposal as written contains no guarantees that the civilian populations of nations at war will receive fair and equal access to medical supplies and services. Any nation, under the current proposal, could restrict these for military units at the expense of civilian health and welfare, which is plainly unacceptable.

There is a very healthy debate over this issue here:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83430&highlight=

I have to vote against this. This resolution would mean giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Sorry, but if I'm at war with someone, why would I try to help them? So they can attack me later? Umm, NO.
Hagen Bonecracker, Chief Armorer of Excessive Firepower

This is a terible proposal. The truth is that when you are at war you must put everything you have into winning the war. If you don't then more people of your country will die. That is why it is reasonable to stop trading with an enemy. Also when at war the demand for medicine increase do to injuries, is it not reasonable to keep your own medicine for your own people and soldiers?

This is a terible proposal. The truth is that when you are at war you must put everything you have into winning the war. If you don't then more people of your country will die. That is why it is reasonable to stop trading with an enemy. Also when at war the demand for medicine increase do to injuries, is it not reasonable to keep your own medicine for your own people and soldiers?