NationStates Jolt Archive

Please can you approve my region's UN Proposal for improved healthcare in LEDC's (lesser economically developed countries) to let people with diseaeses to get the right medication and treatment.

Feel free to telegram me about this post or the proposal

Thank You
The Rogue Island Piratedom of The Powder Monkey
UN Delegate for The Supremely Bizarre Loony League

I was the original author of this proposal, and I would like to thank my delegate for re-submitting it for me. Also, if anyone has queries, could they direct them to me? Here's the proposal:


Fighting Diseases in LEDCs
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: The Powder Monkey
Description: SADDENED THAT:

-easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults in LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries)

-HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa



POSTULATING THAT:

-The prevention and curing of disease would help to alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world, such as instability, and high birth rates in an effort to "compensate" for infant mortality rates

-All humans have a right to life which is more valuable than any individual, corporation or country's right to the money he, she or it has earned

-Improvement of conditions in poor countries will eventually benefit rich countries through increased safety from the spread of disease, increased stability, development of poor economies (and thus benefit to all by trade), reduced demands for short term aid and reduced numbers of refugees fleeing appalling conditions.



WORRIED THAT:

-corruption in poor countries' governments means that aid given to these states is often wasted





This assembly hereby authorises the establishment of a World Health Organisation Programme to deal with third world disease with the following measures:

-recruitment of both volunteer and paid medical workers

-sending these workers into countries designated as being in need of the programmes help (the WHO would, every five years, identify poor countries in need of this type of aid to aim the programme at, and these decisions may be overturned by a majority vote from the general assembly if it feels that the WHO's decisions are not in-keeping with the spirit of this resolution)

-establishment by these workers of free clinics

-provision of transport so that some workers can travel around to those areas which cannot be provided for by the clinics

-provision and administering by these workers (directly to the people in need) of free medicines, vaccinations (in order to fulfil the demands of the 'Keep The World Disease-Free' Resolution) and other treatments

-the distribution of free contraceptives to combat the spread of STDs (and as a bonus reduce spiralling birth rates)

-establishment of hygiene education programmes as long term preventatives

-carrying out the 'Global AIDS Initiative' Resolution through safe-sex education programmes and provision of suitable anti-retroviral drugs

-provision of clean water supplies



This programme will be funded by a tax on nation's governments, included in the UN membership fees already paid by UN countries:

-the WHO will decide reasonable amounts to tax on a sliding scale based on GNP and GNP per capita, and if it is deemed sensible, extremely poor countries could be made exempt

-these amounts shall constitute minimums - larger donations will be voluntary - and charities, individuals and corporations can donate too (though the programme must not be seen to favour the products of any particular pharmaceutical companies - any corporation whose products are in use by the programme may not contribute money, rather they may only give medical supplies, equipment, or perhaps the rights to drug patents).

-countries benefitting from the programme may be exempt from the tax, as long as they put an agreed amount into their health services


Approvals: 12 (The Powder Monkey, Bensum2, Peach Cobbler, Freebonia, Traegonia, Anthonycha, Painful intrusion, Badim Pollum, UmbrellaCorp, Tanah Burung, Jontes, New Ithilien)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Jan 6 2004

easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults in LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries)

This is called "nature". It's the number one cause of death in human history. It's also something you just can't declare war on.

-HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa

And the US for that matter.

-The prevention and curing of disease would help to alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world, such as instability, and high birth rates in an effort to "compensate" for infant mortality rates

Have you read any Amartya Sen? If you want to prevent instability and all these nasty disease thingies, what you need is a free press and viable laws that respect individual rights.

All humans have a right to life which is more valuable than any individual, corporation or country's right to the money he, she or it has earned

Exactly. Your right to life means that you are sovereign over your own body. This does not mean that you have teh right to declare that you are sovereign over other people's bodies as well. That's called "slavery". And other people have the right to life (i.e. the right to their bodies) just like you do.

Improvement of conditions in poor countries will eventually benefit rich countries through increased safety from the spread of disease, increased stability, development of poor economies (and thus benefit to all by trade), reduced demands for short term aid and reduced numbers of refugees fleeing appalling conditions.

Well, duh. Unfortunately what you're proposing is at best zero-sum and quite possibly negative-sum. If you want to help diseases, develop those countries through giving them viable governments and free trade.

corruption in poor countries' governments means that aid given to these states is often wasted

Exactly. Those poor countries carry much, and quite probably most, of the blame for their own problems.

There's an old joke told in some international economic convention that I thought was pretty funny:

So an African Minister visits his Asian Minister friend and sees that he has a palace for himself. So the African Minister asks, "how can you afford such a palace on your salary?" And the Asian Minister points to the bridge and says, "see that bridge? Ten percent". The next year, the Asian Minister visits the African Minister and sees that he has constructed an even more lavish grandiose palace and asks him, "how can you afford such a palace?" And the African Minister says "see that bridge over there?" The Asian Minister replies, "no." Then the African Minister says, "Exactly. One hundred percent."

Not that funny, but incredibly insightful as to why poor countries are poor.

This assembly hereby authorises the establishment of a World Health Organisation Programme to deal with third world disease with the following measures:

Don't we already have one?

recruitment of both volunteer and paid medical workers

That's okay, but private organizations can do that too.

sending these workers into countries designated as being in need of the programmes help (the WHO would, every five years, identify poor countries in need of this type of aid to aim the programme at, and these decisions may be overturned by a majority vote from the general assembly if it feels that the WHO's decisions are not in-keeping with the spirit of this resolution)

Arbitrary power to be "checked" by majority vote, that's always nice.

establishment by these workers of free clinics

Private organizations can do this too.

provision of transport so that some workers can travel around to those areas which cannot be provided for by the clinics

Private organizatiosn can do that too.

provision and administering by these workers (directly to the people in need) of free medicines, vaccinations (in order to fulfil the demands of the 'Keep The World Disease-Free' Resolution) and other treatments

Ahem. Private organizations can do that too.

-the distribution of free contraceptives to combat the spread of STDs (and as a bonus reduce spiralling birth rates).

So why do we need a government bureaucracy to do this again?

-establishment of hygiene education programmes as long term preventatives

Yeah just look at how well that worked in the United States. People will be dirty. They were meant to be dirty. In fact, children living in overly clean conditions often develop compromised immune systems and suffer from health problems due to this later in life.

-carrying out the 'Global AIDS Initiative' Resolution through safe-sex education programmes and provision of suitable anti-retroviral drugs

Sex-education hasn't worked in the US, a rich, functional nation. What makes you think it will work in poor dysfunctional ones?

As for the drugs, a private organization can do that too.

provision of clean water supplies

Okay. After all, teh ammount that we spend yearly on Kyoto Treaty enforcement is about what it would cost to give everyone clean water. So get rid of the Kyoto Treaty and we'll do that.

This programme will be funded by a tax on nation's governments, included in the UN membership fees already paid by UN countries:

And of course, governments tax their own citizens, which is the biggest problem... You mentioned a right to life. Well a right to life certainly includes a right to your own body. If you use your own body to create something, then you have a right to that to. And if you made a difference to somebody who created something, and he gives you what he created, then certainly that is your right as well? The right to life is not the right to enslave others, as pointed out before.

-the WHO will decide reasonable amounts to tax on a sliding scale based on GNP and GNP per capita, and if it is deemed sensible, extremely poor countries could be made exempt

Oooo, absolute arbitrary power, not checked at all.

-these amounts shall constitute minimums - larger donations will be voluntary - and charities, individuals and corporations can donate too (though the programme must not be seen to favour the products of any particular pharmaceutical companies - any corporation whose products are in use by the programme may not contribute money, rather they may only give medical supplies, equipment, or perhaps the rights to drug patents).

That's rather biased...

-countries benefitting from the programme may be exempt from the tax, as long as they put an agreed amount into their health services

Which you know never happens. See bridge joke above.

easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults in LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries)

This is called "nature". It's the number one cause of death in human history. It's also something you just can't declare war on.

Why not?

-HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa

And the US for that matter.

Not nearly to the same extent. Anyway, what's your point? All that says to me is that the US should have a proper, free healthcare system like we do in the UK.

-The prevention and curing of disease would help to alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world, such as instability, and high birth rates in an effort to "compensate" for infant mortality rates

Have you read any Amartya Sen? If you want to prevent instability and all these nasty disease thingies, what you need is a free press and viable laws that respect individual rights.

Corrupt governments aren't big on giving their citizens rights etc., and regime change is messy, dangerous, very risky, and usually illegal.

All humans have a right to life which is more valuable than any individual, corporation or country's right to the money he, she or it has earned

Exactly. Your right to life means that you are sovereign over your own body. This does not mean that you have teh right to declare that you are sovereign over other people's bodies as well. That's called "slavery". And other people have the right to life (i.e. the right to their bodies) just like you do.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The populations of LEDCs can refuse the treatment, but I doubt that would happen, and if you're talking about taxation being theft again, then I'm sorry but I believe that the right not to have to die if it's avoidable (and our duty to help preserve human life when possible) takes precedence over the right to property, even if you think the two are linked.

Improvement of conditions in poor countries will eventually benefit rich countries through increased safety from the spread of disease, increased stability, development of poor economies (and thus benefit to all by trade), reduced demands for short term aid and reduced numbers of refugees fleeing appalling conditions.

Well, duh. Unfortunately what you're proposing is at best zero-sum and quite possibly negative-sum. If you want to help diseases, develop those countries through giving them viable governments and free trade.

I just put this in to try to satisfy the people who seem to have no respect for human life outside their own nations, or often outside their own families.

corruption in poor countries' governments means that aid given to these states is often wasted

Exactly. Those poor countries carry much, and quite probably most, of the blame for their own problems.

There's an old joke told in some international economic convention that I thought was pretty funny:

So an African Minister visits his Asian Minister friend and sees that he has a palace for himself. So the African Minister asks, "how can you afford such a palace on your salary?" And the Asian Minister points to the bridge and says, "see that bridge? Ten percent". The next year, the Asian Minister visits the African Minister and sees that he has constructed an even more lavish grandiose palace and asks him, "how can you afford such a palace?" And the African Minister says "see that bridge over there?" The Asian Minister replies, "no." Then the African Minister says, "Exactly. One hundred percent."

Not that funny, but incredibly insightful as to why poor countries are poor.

That isn't the fault of the country as a whole, merely of the corrupt elite who maintain power through force. Even if the leader gained power with popular support, he then proceeded to violate the trust of the people who put him in place.

This assembly hereby authorises the establishment of a World Health Organisation Programme to deal with third world disease with the following measures:

Don't we already have one?

You've misunderstood. I mean a programme run by the already existing WHO (i.e. this would become one of its many duties)

sending these workers into countries designated as being in need of the programmes help (the WHO would, every five years, identify poor countries in need of this type of aid to aim the programme at, and these decisions may be overturned by a majority vote from the general assembly if it feels that the WHO's decisions are not in-keeping with the spirit of this resolution)

Arbitrary power to be "checked" by majority vote, that's always nice.

-the WHO will decide reasonable amounts to tax on a sliding scale based on GNP and GNP per capita, and if it is deemed sensible, extremely poor countries could be made exempt

Oooo, absolute arbitrary power, not checked at all.

Ok feel free to suggest alterations to the political system behind it, I'm not sure of the best way to do this. Actually no, its probably best if I enlist the help of someone who supports the basic principles.

Private organizations can do this too.

Well yes. The principle behind this proposal is based on what I have heard about Médecins sans Frontières. But the point is that these organaisations do not have the money available to make a real difference.

-establishment of hygiene education programmes as long term preventatives

Yeah just look at how well that worked in the United States. People will be dirty. They were meant to be dirty. In fact, children living in overly clean conditions often develop compromised immune systems and suffer from health problems due to this later in life.

I don't think you have to worry about them being too clean. I'm talking about basic things, like "boil water if it isn't from a clean source" and "don't take water downriver from where the next town along dumps their sewage" (this isn't meant to be patronising to them, this kinda stuff actually does still happen)

-carrying out the 'Global AIDS Initiative' Resolution through safe-sex education programmes and provision of suitable anti-retroviral drugs

Sex-education hasn't worked in the US, a rich, functional nation. What makes you think it will work in poor dysfunctional ones?

The limited sex education programmes set up by charities have seen some success. The rest of Europe has more sex education, earlier, than the UK, and substantially lower teenage pregnancy rates too. Part of the problem in the US is the large numbers (they've done studies and proved this link - I saw something a while ago in New Scientist) of teenagers whose parents encourage them to take abstinence vows, but who then break those vows - however, since they weren't planning on having sex, they aren't carrying a condom.

provision of clean water supplies

Okay. After all, teh ammount that we spend yearly on Kyoto Treaty enforcement is about what it would cost to give everyone clean water. So get rid of the Kyoto Treaty and we'll do that.

"We"? The US has spent nil on the Kyoto treaty, because you guys never signed it. Actually now, nobody is spending anything on it. It can't go ahead because Russia pulled out (following the US' lead) and they don't have the prerequisite membership.

This programme will be funded by a tax on nation's governments, included in the UN membership fees already paid by UN countries:

And of course, governments tax their own citizens, which is the biggest problem... You mentioned a right to life. Well a right to life certainly includes a right to your own body. If you use your own body to create something, then you have a right to that to. And if you made a difference to somebody who created something, and he gives you what he created, then certainly that is your right as well? The right to life is not the right to enslave others, as pointed out before.

this is a pretty tenuous link. As I said near the beginning, IMO, the right to life (i.e. the right to have others who can, try and save you, nothing else) takes precedence over the right to property.

-these amounts shall constitute minimums - larger donations will be voluntary - and charities, individuals and corporations can donate too (though the programme must not be seen to favour the products of any particular pharmaceutical companies - any corporation whose products are in use by the programme may not contribute money, rather they may only give medical supplies, equipment, or perhaps the rights to drug patents).

That's rather biased...

I assume you mean against drug companies. But this is necessary to prevent one of them taking over the programme and bribing officials only to use their products, even when there are superior alternatives.

-countries benefitting from the programme may be exempt from the tax, as long as they put an agreed amount into their health services

Which you know never happens. See bridge joke above.

Well they can't be expected to pay money in, because it would be pointless and would probably put too much strain on them. Perhaps they can be monitored to ensure that they do build proper health services, or perhaps a different resolution can deal with this. Whatever.