NationStates Jolt Archive

I am voting against this resolution because I do not see this helping the UN.

This would mean that money spent in my nation goes to help regions who may not be spending enough money and thus have blood shortages.

This would mean that should there be a major incident in one nation and then a major shortage in another nation, logistically, problems may occur in the areas of transportation and I fear that no worldwide distribution system is economically viable and efficient enough to risk the possibility of contamination or otherwise.

The money that would be invested in this would be better spent on social education and local blood donor drives. Another viable option is to create a UN-Red Cross database to alleviate the difficulties in rare and uncommon needs.

Yes another possibility would be to have mandatory donations at least once a year for eligible donors. But, that's just as ridiculous as the UN proposal up for debate.

As blood expires in a matter of days teh transferal of blood to a central core and then the re-distribution would take a sizeable chunk off the life expectancy of each donation of blood. If there was a regional bank only then this may make more sense especially in the larger populated regions. I belive this needs amending before it is put through.

I am voting against this resolution because I do not see this helping the UN.

This would mean that money spent in my nation goes to help regions who may not be spending enough money and thus have blood shortages.

This would mean that should there be a major incident in one nation and then a major shortage in another nation, logistically, problems may occur in the areas of transportation and I fear that no worldwide distribution system is economically viable and efficient enough to risk the possibility of contamination or otherwise.

The money that would be invested in this would be better spent on social education and local blood donor drives. Another viable option is to create a UN-Red Cross database to alleviate the difficulties in rare and uncommon needs.

Yes another possibility would be to have mandatory donations at least once a year for eligible donors. But, that's just as ridiculous as the UN proposal up for debate.


I completely agree!

I don't see how a project this large could be accomplished affectively at a world wide scale. I believe that there must be a better way to solve this problem.

Keep it local! If we have an incident @ one of our mountain yoga resorts... the last thing we would ever want to do is contact the UN for blood.

On top of that... what would stop a nation waging war against another nation to demand that nations blood for it's soldiers?

We voted against this resolution too because, the idea of this resolution is good but will inevitably cause many problems. Are blood donors laws the same in all UN members ? every nations don't have the same laws about donation of blood, hygiene, health etc. This resolution may spread epidemics in a lot of nations.

:arrow: I urge you to vote against this utopian resolution !!

Fellow Delegates:

We have done ourselves a disservice by adding the against to the title of the forum. All this will serve to do is make this a "preach to the choir" room and diminish our chances of convincing others who may have been pro-resolution or riding the fence. If possible, I submit we create a new room that welcomes all points of view, cut and paste the comments that have already been made, and start anew the campaigning before the ayes become overwhelming.

Dunlend

Already did vote against :)

Although I feel it will pass again..... all rediculous resolutions pass :/

The largest problem facing the world in regards to donor blood is a low availability of safe blood supplies in developing nations. In developing nations, 60-70% of the available blood supply comes from family and paid donors. These donors carry a significantly higher risk of carrying transfusion transmissible infections (TTI's-HIV, hepatitis b & c, syphilis and others) than unpaid voluntary donors. And due to the low availability of advanced laboratory testing equipment, these infections are not always screened for. While red blood cells can be stored for up to 5 weeks, platelets can only be stored for up to 5 days (if kept at 32-34 degrees celcius). And while developing nations frequently have low populations, this has no bearing on their geographical size, which may be quite small or quite large. Either way, part of being defined as a developing nation involves having a substandard infrastructure. Therefore, the opportunity for blood supplies to be shipped from developed nations where there is a safe blood supply to developing nations where there is not, within the neccessary time period and at the neccessary temperature is low. It is my opinion that the solution is not to take excess blood supplies from one country and give them to another, but to use education to train public health workers in identifying low risk donors and to encourage low risk populations to donate in nations where there is a need.

Organ donation is even more of an educational issue, as most donated organs are only usable for a handful of hours and the worldwide deficite in donor organs is entirely caused by a lack of available donors. It is extremely rare for an available donor organ to go unused due to a lack of accessible recipient. While in developed nations, the rate of organ donation volunteerism can be quite high (50%) [OOC-RL-In the US in 2003, slightly less than 6,000 people died awaiting transplant, while over 25,000 transplants were performed), in developing countries this rate, due to cultural and religious beliefs is usually very low, and often is nearly zero.[OOC-RL-Per the British Organ Donor Society, the rate of organ donation voluteerism for Bangaledesh is 0%, and the rate for Muslims is 5%) Due to the extremely high perishability of donor organs, and the extremely low incidence of surplus organs, the only possible solution is to increase organ donation worldwide, but especially in developing nations. This, of course, raises questions about the ethicality of attempting to change the cultural and/or religious beliefs of a statistically significant portion of an entire nation in exchange for a lower mortality rate, and I do not have those answers.

Henrietta Chapman
Minister of Frogs
Boogidyloo

Already did vote against :)

Although I feel it will pass again..... all rediculous resolutions pass :/

It raises up another UN's big problem...

i am new to the game but is there any way one could propose an alternative perhaps the above suggested local blood initiatives and a UN fund as opposed to a UN blood bank?
While I see the reason for opposing but we fear the issue would be completly side lined.


Ministry of Madame Pomphrey
Most Serene Republic of Caribana

This resolution seems to us to be a license for indiscriminate nations to make no efforts to gather blood in their own nations at all, since they'd be able to meet all their own needs from the UN blood bank. Without a requirement for nations to undertake minimum levels of blood gathering, this would basically punish nations for having a social conscience.

Well, having the UN take over the Blood Bank business is not going to make the Vampires happy. :twisted:

This resolution, like so many before it, only underscores the need for a LAST UN RESOLUTION that will forbid the UN from passing any more binding resolutions. Why can't we just be a debating society like the good ol' days until we're as irrelevant as the League of Nations?

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"

Already did vote against :)

Although I feel it will pass again..... all rediculous resolutions pass :/

ever since I joined NS, every resolution has passed. why!?

Stanisar feels that this motion may choke the Blood donor system with reams of red tape and buerocracy. We think A de-centralised will be able to deal with this better.

Rinto strongly feels that Rintoese blood should go to Rintoese citizens. I don't think people would want to donate blood if they knew it would just go to someplace far off, or worse yet, rot in a UN warehouse.

Fellow Delegates,

While the intentions of the resolution currently before the General Assembly are in fact notable, the means by which said goals are to be achieved is sorely lacking in forthought and planning. The Republic of the Daytona 500 sees several critical issues that MUST be addressed before such a proposal can even be voted on with even the slightest modicum of knowledge of the matter.

I. Blood is limited in the time it can be kept. By implementing a centralized blood bank to serve all nations, you instantaneously increase the criticality of transporting blood from point A to point B, because it's now travelling thousands of miles instead of hundreds at the most. Since you are increasing the time of transportation, you decrease the overall shelf time that hte blood can be kept. This will have the effect of requiring blood stocks to be replenished more often, and will increase the overall costs associated with blood banks.

II. Considering that many local communities can't even keep adequate supplies on hand now, this resolution, if passed, would only serve to increase the burden placed on those communities so that other communities may benefit. We should NOT be taking resources from communities that already face a shortage to redistribute to others.

III. With the added burden placed upon a "World Blood Bank" to handle, process, and distribute donations, the resolution fails to make any sort ot provision whatsoever for the testing of blood to insure that it is not contaminated or unusable. Also, the overcentralized nature of the system proposed by the resolution creates easy opportunity for someone to tamper with the blood supply without even being noticed.

IV. The provisions of the resolution that deal specifically with organ donations are invalid for several reasons:

a.) Organ donations must be harvested from the donor and IMMEDIATELY transferred to the recipient - you can't send organs to a centralized holding facility to await a recipient.
b.) Marrow donations also fall under the same principle.
c.) In order to insure that organ and marrow donations go to the compatible recipients, you would have to do extensive testing on samples from both recipients and donors - the resolution makes no provision for that, therefore it is an unfunded mandate forced upon the member nations.
d.) The Red Cross/Red Crescent has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER regarding procedures for handling blood, organ, and marrow donations. This section of the resolution is inherently false. The Red Cross/Red Crescent is a humanitarian association, not a medical organization with the ability to create and implent policies regarding organ and marrow transplantation.

For all of these reasons, the Republic of the Daytona 500 strongly urges ALL member nation-states to vote this resolution down, as it is unenforceable, unattainable, unfunded, and lacks any true professional oversight.

I yield,

Fellow Delegates,

While the intentions of the resolution currently before the General Assembly are in fact notable, the means by which said goals are to be achieved is sorely lacking in forthought and planning. The Republic of the Daytona 500 sees several critical issues that MUST be addressed before such a proposal can even be voted on with even the slightest modicum of knowledge of the matter.

I. Blood is limited in the time it can be kept. By implementing a centralized blood bank to serve all nations, you instantaneously increase the criticality of transporting blood from point A to point B, because it's now travelling thousands of miles instead of hundreds at the most. Since you are increasing the time of transportation, you decrease the overall shelf time that hte blood can be kept. This will have the effect of requiring blood stocks to be replenished more often, and will increase the overall costs associated with blood banks.

II. Considering that many local communities can't even keep adequate supplies on hand now, this resolution, if passed, would only serve to increase the burden placed on those communities so that other communities may benefit. We should NOT be taking resources from communities that already face a shortage to redistribute to others.

III. With the added burden placed upon a "World Blood Bank" to handle, process, and distribute donations, the resolution fails to make any sort ot provision whatsoever for the testing of blood to insure that it is not contaminated or unusable. Also, the overcentralized nature of the system proposed by the resolution creates easy opportunity for someone to tamper with the blood supply without even being noticed.

IV. The provisions of the resolution that deal specifically with organ donations are invalid for several reasons:

a.) Organ donations must be harvested from the donor and IMMEDIATELY transferred to the recipient - you can't send organs to a centralized holding facility to await a recipient.
b.) Marrow donations also fall under the same principle.
c.) In order to insure that organ and marrow donations go to the compatible recipients, you would have to do extensive testing on samples from both recipients and donors - the resolution makes no provision for that, therefore it is an unfunded mandate forced upon the member nations.
d.) The Red Cross/Red Crescent has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER regarding procedures for handling blood, organ, and marrow donations. This section of the resolution is inherently false. The Red Cross/Red Crescent is a humanitarian association, not a medical organization with the ability to create and implent policies regarding organ and marrow transplantation.

For all of these reasons, the Republic of the Daytona 500 strongly urges ALL member nation-states to vote this resolution down, as it is unenforceable, unattainable, unfunded, and lacks any true professional oversight.

I yield,

Fellow Delegates,

While the intentions of the resolution currently before the General Assembly are in fact notable, the means by which said goals are to be achieved is sorely lacking in forthought and planning. The Republic of the Daytona 500 sees several critical issues that MUST be addressed before such a proposal can even be voted on with even the slightest modicum of knowledge of the matter.

I. Blood is limited in the time it can be kept. By implementing a centralized blood bank to serve all nations, you instantaneously increase the criticality of transporting blood from point A to point B, because it's now travelling thousands of miles instead of hundreds at the most. Since you are increasing the time of transportation, you decrease the overall shelf time that hte blood can be kept. This will have the effect of requiring blood stocks to be replenished more often, and will increase the overall costs associated with blood banks.

II. Considering that many local communities can't even keep adequate supplies on hand now, this resolution, if passed, would only serve to increase the burden placed on those communities so that other communities may benefit. We should NOT be taking resources from communities that already face a shortage to redistribute to others.

III. With the added burden placed upon a "World Blood Bank" to handle, process, and distribute donations, the resolution fails to make any sort ot provision whatsoever for the testing of blood to insure that it is not contaminated or unusable. Also, the overcentralized nature of the system proposed by the resolution creates easy opportunity for someone to tamper with the blood supply without even being noticed.

IV. The provisions of the resolution that deal specifically with organ donations are invalid for several reasons:

a.) Organ donations must be harvested from the donor and IMMEDIATELY transferred to the recipient - you can't send organs to a centralized holding facility to await a recipient.
b.) Marrow donations also fall under the same principle.
c.) In order to insure that organ and marrow donations go to the compatible recipients, you would have to do extensive testing on samples from both recipients and donors - the resolution makes no provision for that, therefore it is an unfunded mandate forced upon the member nations.
d.) The Red Cross/Red Crescent has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER regarding procedures for handling blood, organ, and marrow donations. This section of the resolution is inherently false. The Red Cross/Red Crescent is a humanitarian association, not a medical organization with the ability to create and implent policies regarding organ and marrow transplantation.

For all of these reasons, the Republic of the Daytona 500 strongly urges ALL member nation-states to vote this resolution down, as it is unenforceable, unattainable, unfunded, and lacks any true professional oversight.

I yield,

Fellow Delegates,

While the intentions of the resolution currently before the General Assembly are in fact notable, the means by which said goals are to be achieved is sorely lacking in forthought and planning. The Republic of the Daytona 500 sees several critical issues that MUST be addressed before such a proposal can even be voted on with even the slightest modicum of knowledge of the matter.

I. Blood is limited in the time it can be kept. By implementing a centralized blood bank to serve all nations, you instantaneously increase the criticality of transporting blood from point A to point B, because it's now travelling thousands of miles instead of hundreds at the most. Since you are increasing the time of transportation, you decrease the overall shelf time that hte blood can be kept. This will have the effect of requiring blood stocks to be replenished more often, and will increase the overall costs associated with blood banks.

II. Considering that many local communities can't even keep adequate supplies on hand now, this resolution, if passed, would only serve to increase the burden placed on those communities so that other communities may benefit. We should NOT be taking resources from communities that already face a shortage to redistribute to others.

III. With the added burden placed upon a "World Blood Bank" to handle, process, and distribute donations, the resolution fails to make any sort ot provision whatsoever for the testing of blood to insure that it is not contaminated or unusable. Also, the overcentralized nature of the system proposed by the resolution creates easy opportunity for someone to tamper with the blood supply without even being noticed.

IV. The provisions of the resolution that deal specifically with organ donations are invalid for several reasons:

a.) Organ donations must be harvested from the donor and IMMEDIATELY transferred to the recipient - you can't send organs to a centralized holding facility to await a recipient.
b.) Marrow donations also fall under the same principle.
c.) In order to insure that organ and marrow donations go to the compatible recipients, you would have to do extensive testing on samples from both recipients and donors - the resolution makes no provision for that, therefore it is an unfunded mandate forced upon the member nations.
d.) The Red Cross/Red Crescent has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER regarding procedures for handling blood, organ, and marrow donations. This section of the resolution is inherently false. The Red Cross/Red Crescent is a humanitarian association, not a medical organization with the ability to create and implent policies regarding organ and marrow transplantation.

For all of these reasons, the Republic of the Daytona 500 strongly urges ALL member nation-states to vote this resolution down, as it is unenforceable, unattainable, unfunded, and lacks any true professional oversight.

I yield,

Fellow Delegates,

While the intentions of the resolution currently before the General Assembly are in fact notable, the means by which said goals are to be achieved is sorely lacking in forthought and planning. The Republic of the Daytona 500 sees several critical issues that MUST be addressed before such a proposal can even be voted on with even the slightest modicum of knowledge of the matter.

I. Blood is limited in the time it can be kept. By implementing a centralized blood bank to serve all nations, you instantaneously increase the criticality of transporting blood from point A to point B, because it's now travelling thousands of miles instead of hundreds at the most. Since you are increasing the time of transportation, you decrease the overall shelf time that the blood can be kept. This will have the effect of requiring blood stocks to be replenished more often, and will increase the overall costs associated with blood banks.

II. Considering that many local communities can't even keep adequate supplies on hand now, this resolution, if passed, would only serve to increase the burden placed on those communities so that other communities may benefit. We should NOT be taking resources from communities that already face a shortage to redistribute to others.

III. With the added burden placed upon a "World Blood Bank" to handle, process, and distribute donations, the resolution fails to make any sort of provision whatsoever for the testing of blood to insure that it is not contaminated or unusable. Also, the overcentralized nature of the system proposed by the resolution creates easy opportunity for someone to tamper with the blood supply without even being noticed.

IV. The provisions of the resolution that deal specifically with organ donations and marrow transplants are invalid for several reasons:

a.) Organ donations must be harvested from the donor and IMMEDIATELY transferred to the recipient - you can't send organs to a centralized holding facility to await a recipient.
b.) Marrow donations also fall under the same principle.
c.) In order to insure that organ and marrow donations go to the compatible recipients, you would have to do extensive testing on samples from both recipients and donors - the resolution makes no provision for that, therefore it is an unfunded mandate forced upon the member nations.
d.) The Red Cross/Red Crescent has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER regarding procedures for handling blood, organ, and marrow donations. This section of the resolution is inherently false. The Red Cross/Red Crescent is a humanitarian association, not a medical organization with the ability to create and implement policies regarding organ and marrow transplantation.

For all of these reasons, the Republic of the Daytona 500 strongly urges ALL member nation-states to vote this resolution down, as it is unenforceable, unattainable, unfunded, and lacks any true professional oversight.

I yield,

I am voting against, because this resolution:

A) Is not correctly formatted, as UN resolutions are REQUIRED to be only a single sentence long, and

B) Is poorly written, with large grey areas surrounding funding and level of mandatory involvement, and

C) Does not appear to be particularly beneficial to my nation, which is impoverished and cannot afford costly organ transplants anyway.

This resolution just cannot work. Blood and organs being shared and transported worldwide? I can understand within a region, but the whole world? Who will be transporting, organizing, storing, sorting, and all that? By the time blood and/or organs make it to or from its destination, it will probably be rotted, and useless. More cash out the window. and anyways, my country has no problem donating. If another country doesn't fell the need to really push donating, then I have to give them our blood/organs that my own country needs badly? Just because thier government is to lazy? I'm sorry, but this resolution really hurts us nations that actually work to improve this problem.

Also, you should probably change the title of this post. You don't need to convince us that are already against it to vote against :)

I voted no. Not only is this thing pointless and none of the UN's concern, but i really don't want my citizens to have blood from other nations. I don't know if other nations are disease ridden, and I don't trust the UN to check. I certainly don't want to put the well-being of my citizens in the hands of the UN. I will keep them safe and they'll keep their blood within the nation!

Exactly.

I urge all delegates to help vote down this resolution by wiring all nationstates in their region and having them vote against the resoultion 8)

I am voting against this resolution because I do not see this helping the UN.

This would mean that money spent in my nation goes to help regions who may not be spending enough money and thus have blood shortages.

This would mean that should there be a major incident in one nation and then a major shortage in another nation, logistically, problems may occur in the areas of transportation and I fear that no worldwide distribution system is economically viable and efficient enough to risk the possibility of contamination or otherwise.

The money that would be invested in this would be better spent on social education and local blood donor drives. Another viable option is to create a UN-Red Cross database to alleviate the difficulties in rare and uncommon needs.

Yes another possibility would be to have mandatory donations at least once a year for eligible donors. But, that's just as ridiculous as the UN proposal up for debate.

Moreover blood moving around the world would be likely to spoil waiting for the bureaucracy!

Moreover blood moving around the world would be likely to spoil waiting for the bureaucracy!

The Republic of Cuiusquemodi had been considering voting in the affirmative on this resolution until reading this comment. The Republic of Cuiusquemodi considers this a laudable effort, but simply cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of a resolution that may lead to the waste of thousands of units of blood.

Dunlend: I think that the labelling of this post as a post for the expression against the resolution is important as forum readers will know what this is about.

I have made a few points but mainly I wanted to bring to light the lack of logistical sense that this resolution makes. I am glad and surprised at the response. I think that this resolution needs some serious reconsideration and the opinions voiced here will bring these into the light.

Lets hope more people read and change their votes accordingly.

here here

kudos to rottweilers

---Feather-Belly

The problem is that a lot of nations vote automaticly for the UN resolutions believing that all are good.
This is the true problem of UN...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138567

using only one thread is more reasonable ;)

It is the organ donations which particularly trouble us, especially since they are not even mentioned in the title.

There is absolutely no protection for our home nations from those nations in the world that improperly handle their organ and blood donations. It states that there will be testing, but there is nothing stated about enforcing members to pass such testing to benefit from such a service!

There are nations in the world that take blood donations enmass!! They hook people up to machines only based on their blood type! They then collect the blood into a single vat!!

This slurry of pestilence is then used in their hospitals!!!

Is this the kind of blood that would be offered to my nation?!?!

http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hiv_and_aids/public/080801e.html

These activities must stop BEFORE any such country is admitted into such a world blood bank system!

There needs to be seperate threads for pro and con arguments, because otherwise, it gets overly confusing to skim through hundreds of posts and try to figure out exactly which one is a reply to 'x'

Furthermore, someone said something about UN resolutions having to be only one sentence long. I don't know where that came from as UN resolutions often have multiple sentences.

How will the UN decide who gets what? All this resolution does is add more people to the organ donor list who wont recieve them. Artifical organ research in the way to go. This resolution is almost as bad as the freedom one.