NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Environment; Affected Industries: All or None

Description: It has been observed that each year more people get cancer every year. This leads to predict that more people die from cancer each year.

Also observed is that many countries do not have their own treatment centers for cancer

We are predicting that the rate of death will keep increasing until whole populations die out.

It is therefore necessary to try to stop cancer.

The first step is to establish cancer treatment centers in every city of UN Member Nations which offer chemotherapy.

The second is to establish research centers in every major city of UN Member Nations that will try to discover a cure for cancer.

With the first step, less people will die from cancer, and those that do will take a longer time to, thereby being able to stay alive until a cure is found.

The second step allows research to be done on volunteers. At least one male and one female volunteer from each of the following groups must be taken for research: children ages 0-12, teenagers 13-17, adults 18-49, and seniors 50 and above. These must all be diagnosed with cancer.

Every two months, representatives from each research center from the UN Member Nations will meet at a predetermined place to discuss research progress and do more advanced and sophisticated work.

The research centers will provide new research findings, equipment, and inventions to cancer treatment centers.

It is our hope that cancer will one day be eradicated, and we will have one less disease plaguing the people of the world.

Description: It has been observed that each year more people get cancer every year.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with the sentence structure? (I hope not now that I put it in bold)

... and yes that is all I have to say about the proposal.

Gah. Double typing. I was typing it, left, forgot what I was typing. Anyway, no good nor bad comments? At least no bad.

Despite not being a UN member nation, we here in Xanatotia heartily support this initiative and will encourage our UN delegate and member nations to support and vote for this proposal. This is a noble cause that will uplift the whole of humanity and aside from that, any program that will increase my chances of achieving physical immortality is okay in my book.

David Xanatos - CEO and President for Life of Xanatotia.
"I've -always- wanted to say that."

After much quiet but emphatic discussing, the Ketrana representatives motion to speak. "Hmm. We have debated the issue, and have come to the conclusion that this is a worthy venture. Unfortunately, the position of UN Delegate was not entrusted to our people, but should this motion be brought before the UN as a whole, you may rest assured that this will receive our support. The health and welfare of a population is of utmost importance to everyone in the nation: as illness spreads and mortality rates rise, basic resource distribution (by whatever means employed) becomes more difficult, making it impossible to maintain infrastructure. It is thus in the best interests of the deciding bodies of all nations to look carefully at this proposal."

"Such measures already exist within our borders, of course. Health care is a basic right in our lands."

The Holy Empire of Tomathria greatly appreciates your gestures. We hope that more countries such as you shall arise to this great cause.

While a cure for cancer would indeed better the world, the people of Sophista will not be lending their support to this proposal. Not to say that we have something against people with cancer, only that this resolution goes miles and miles in the wrong directions when it comes to reaching a viable solution.

First, we'd like to point out the effect this is going to have on smaller nations. Since your resolution requires that every city have a fully stocked and staffed chemotherapy lab, governments will now have to scramble to come up with the money to construct, equip, and maintain a rather expensive medical institution in every locale with just enough people to qualify itself as a city. This might seem fair if every city in said country were equally affected by cancer rates, but that just isn't the case. Why build a lab that will cost thousands of dollars if the people in that area aren't contracting the disease? Also, keep in mind that you can't guarantee a time frame for the development of a cure. These costs will build up indefinately, even if a cure isn't reached for many years.

Secondly, have you looked at the header for your resolution? What on earth does this have to do with the environment? Or industry for that matter? Even if this proposal were worthy of being passed on to the general assembley, the proper heading would place it as a matter of human rights, that right being the right to the dignity of life. If I recall, this is grounds for immediate deletion of the proposal.

Moving along, how do you justify calling for the mandatory conscription of cancer victims to be poked, prodded, and otherwise used for research? Given the risky nature of cancer research, stripping someone of their right of self-determination under these circumstances is an egregious violation of an inaliable right. Granted, the resolution calls for volunteers, but what happens if no one wants to volunteer? Or, God willing, there simply aren't any patients with cancer in that bracket?

Fourth, let us apply the same cost-benefit analysis to the clause forcing the construction of cancer research centers in every major city. Absent a definition of "major city," we're going to assume that any city with a population over 100,000 is now the home to a brand new research facility. And to what end? Keep in mind, no one lab is going to be doing something another lab can't. Instead, we're going to have literally millions of individual centers doing the same thing for months on end. This is an enourmous waste of resources. Not only can we look to the same crisis for small nations alluded to in the first argument, but imagine how much better served the population would be if this research were focused and you combined the centers into one large area? This proposal doesn't provide for these improvements.

Fifth, this proposal does nothing to actually decrease the rate of cancer development among the population. Absent a cure, the amount of people afflicted with disease will continue to rise. A more prudent solution would be to implement legislation to control certain factors that lead to cancer growth: diet, exposure to known cancer-causing agents, and so on. This proposal only seeks to monkey around with people until a cure is found, not solve the problem of rising rates.

Sixth, I challenged the author to demonstrate how this problem is a plague on the international community. Cancer is noncommunicable, therefore can only cross borders if someone who has it moves to another country. Even then, the rate of infection doesn't change, it just moves around. Unlike malaria, influenza, or smallpox, cancer is pretty much static. True, international cooperation would expediate the development of a cure, but that cooperation already exists. Obviously, drug companies are racing for a cure so they can earn the profits from people who want to be cured. This resolution doesn't improve upon that sharing, only mandates that the status quo remain.

With six standing objections to this proposal, I will now relinquish the floor. Please, feel free to respond with substantial, logical arguments to all points raised. If any one of these arguments holds true, you have reason to vote against this proposal.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Against the first and parts of the fourth argument, those countries that cannot create these places unless they go through severe economic loss will have these centers provided by the UN if the UN decides so.

Second, I accidentally mistyped here. On the actual proposal, it is human rights.

Third, those countries/cities that do not have volunteers or people with cancer who meet those ages will be able to recieve volunteers from nearby countries offering volunteers.

Fourth, some research centers may get different results on different people, thereby adding to research. Other centers may be trying to invent medicines or machines that will help the fight against cancer.

Fifth, I will not impose laws to make people do something they don't want to. I could have a law saying that anyone who wishes to diet can diet, but that would be stupid. As for how long the cure will take, I pray that it will be created in time to treat people who have cancer now. If not, well then, we don't say that the project is a faliure, but that it is in progress.

And sixth, I just want to ask you a question. Are you opposing the trying to find a cure for cancer? Because this is something that may get that, no matter how long it takes. If you are opposing that, then you have no humanity and so ignore everything above because I have no wish to speak to you.

We are predicting that the rate of death will keep increasing until whole populations die out.

This is a fairly wild prediction. Although some types of cancer are more prevalent than widely realised among the young, cancer primarily affects those in middle or old age; much of its spread can be attributed to the drop in death rates from other causes.

[quote]The first step is to establish cancer treatment centers in every city of UN Member Nations which offer chemotherapy.[quote]

This proposal seems determined to concentrate on the most expensive and speculative methods of combating cancer. We believe that prevention is vastly more effective than cure; the simplest way of preventing cancer is to promote healthy diet and lifestyle and reduce pollution. While we should not abandon hope of treating those who do fall ill, we would be remiss to concentrate all efforts on them.

We concur that research centres in every major UN city is an arbitrary and counterproductive gesture. Many UN cities have no academic infrastructure; some would be so unattractive to researchers that it would take ridiculously expensive incentives to draw them in. Established universities and research institutions are far more productive; while we acknowledge the necessity of some decentralising in order to prevent academic homogenisation, this expectation is ridiculous.

And cancer research is expensive. And the UN can't levy taxes. And no minor nation is going to be able to maintain a research facility worth the title without bankrupting other departments.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry of Being Nice

Against the first and parts of the fourth argument, those countries that cannot create these places unless they go through severe economic loss will have these centers provided by the UN if the UN decides so.

Given that the UN is a body with no standing budget, the centers will only be built if there happens to be enough change in the couch to pay for them. The UN is already forbidden from levying taxes, and to disguise any kind of fee would be in direct contravention of standing UN legislation.

Furthermore, this still doesn't address the problem of time frame. You would impose these taxes and fees upon nations immediately, but a cure could be years, even decades away. The good will of the people only lasts so long, and if a nation has to chose between promoting the good wil of its own people or shipping of multiple millions of dollars to other nations to create research centers that already exists in abundance you can imagine that this program is going to have a bit of a problem getting off the ground. If there's no money to fund it, how can you claim any kind of benefits?

Third, those countries/cities that do not have volunteers or people with cancer who meet those ages will be able to recieve volunteers from nearby countries offering volunteers.[quote]

So now we're shuttling around victims like its some kind of shell game? This avoids the core of the argument: what happens when there are no volunteers? Now I have multi-million dollar facility with no one but a bunch of doctors in it, assuming there are enough doctors to staff the exploding number of centers. Sophista is blessed with a low cancer rate because the government has taken extensive steps to keep instances of the real causes of the disease as low as possible. Should we be punished economically for being succesful?

[quote]Fourth, some research centers may get different results on different people, thereby adding to research. Other centers may be trying to invent medicines or machines that will help the fight against cancer.

Some volunteers might show different results, yes, but here's a better idea: send them all to the same research center. Now you can consolidate resources, increase response times, and have a dozen doctors in one spot looking at the same charts, instead of having to send the documents everywhere. If efficiency in creating a cure is your goal, and I assume it is, then this clearly isn't the right way to do it.

Fifth, I will not impose laws to make people do something they don't want to. I could have a law saying that anyone who wishes to diet can diet, but that would be stupid. As for how long the cure will take, I pray that it will be created in time to treat people who have cancer now. If not, well then, we don't say that the project is a faliure, but that it is in progress.

You've obviously missed the point of this argument as well. Lead-based paint causes cancer, as do certain chemical food additives and a whole host of pesticides and industrial products. If you're so eager to help the world, why not reduce the occurance of these cancer-causing phenomenon? Instead of waiting to cure cancer, why not eliminate the disease by cutting out its causes? Instead, we have people sitting around with cancer, some being moved across the country to be guinea pigs, while everyone waits for the millions their government is spending to pay off. This isn't a better way of life, nor does it ease the suffering of the persons afflicted with the disease.

And sixth, I just want to ask you a question. Are you opposing the trying to find a cure for cancer? Because this is something that may get that, no matter how long it takes. If you are opposing that, then you have no humanity and so ignore everything above because I have no wish to speak to you.

This is little more than an ad hominem attack, and a violation of one of the simplest logical errors. The identity of a speaker or writer is irrelevant to the validity of his or her argument. It simply does not matter who uttered an argument or what he or she was thinking at the time. All that matters is whether the premises lead to the conclusion. There are only two ways to criticize an argument: (1) One or more of the premises is or are false, or (2) the premises do not lead to the conclusion. This is elementary logic, folks. You haven't given me a reason why this is an international burden, only attempted to portray me as some sadist who enjoys seeing people die of cancer. This is not only false and offensive, but also irrelevant. Come back when you can answer the argument.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Nice thoughts but: there are only so many world leading cancer research scientists, there comes a point where throwing money at these clever folk will achieve little extra (granted they should get more at the moment). They can only manage so many research students and assistants. They can only observe so many patients. Research paths take time to explore, some ideas will only appear after these paths have been exhausted.
It takes time as well as money to fully research such a huge topic and there will never be a guarantee that the problem can be solved. You need more well trained scientists as well as research funds (these scientists will take a long time to train), you will need mechanisms to attract students into the area, and to keep them through a degree, phd and full research careers (thats at least 8 years to get past the PhD stage alone). Would this bill commit to all this and would the member nations be willing to wait all this timeand still pay out?

(Bahgums delegate goes and sits down in a corner, worried at his unusual burst of seriousness)

If you are opposing that, then you have no humanity and so ignore everything above because I have no wish to speak to you.

For the above statement, the G.D. of Laio will ask its Regional UN Delegate NOT to support this proposal. If this proposal ever becomes a resolution before the General Assembly... Laio will vote NO.

Just one question to you. Why does that statement matter if it wasn't aimed at you? Would you prefer I talk to people who like to see people die of cancer?

Why would I support a proposal by someone that is so intolerant. Instead of debating, you choose to seek the lower path.

The Sophistan delegation is curious, does the representative from Tomathria intend to respond to our arguments, or simply pretend they don't exist?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs