NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all:

I have not yet formulated my region's position on the present resolution, and it would seem that it would serve the interest of all nations who wish to vote intelligently on the matter, to have the debate consolidated in one thread, filled with arguments from those both for and against the resolution.

In order to facilitate efficient debate, it would be helpful if everyone numbered their arguments with a brief tag line, (e.g. 1. BLOOD BANK ENCROACHES ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY; or 1. BLOOD BANK DOES NOT ENCROACH ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY) so that subsequent arguments can refer to your arguments easily. For example, someone might write "In reference to SCOS OJ's Argument 1, I say that..."

Thank you and I hope that we can work together to edify all about the present resolution.

Diplomatically yours,
SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's Delegate to the United Nations

#1 Ok first of all the writer of this proposal brings up the point that blood is only good for a few days then proposes that the time it takes to get the blood from donor to recipient be hampered by a new middleman in the form of the UN... completely absurd

#2 The writer also brings up the idea that UN management would improve organizations within blood donor groups yet we have seen in the past how lacking in regulation the UN itself is.... again completely absurd

#3 Finally the writer make no provision for subsequent participants in the blood donor system to be required to give as much as they take.... for the third time---ABSURD!!!

Yet this proposal will still pass due to historical tendencies.....



I DARE you to prove me wrong... :x

I would also like to add that one of my collegues has pointed out that red cross/ red cresent have no power over organ or marrow transplants and therefore would not know what to do with those responsibilities.....

like handing a 3 year old child the steering wheel of an 18-wheeler...

I thank my colleague from SCOS OJ for creating a neutral environment to facilitate this exchange of ideas. I suggested to the negative forums to do this, but they chose to continue to preach to the choir...

I, too, am stuck on Chicken Traders point 1: that of the short term nature of blood. It does seem that this problem creates one of two (?) problems: either much of the blood supply's life is spend in transit, or "UN" blood sits in bank preserves until they are sent to where needed. If another country is higher up on the need list, then someone from, say, Dunlend could be denied, in favor of someone from Chicken Traders. The government of Dunlend would nationalize such banks before it would allow this (no offense to Chicken Traders, of course)

Am I correct on this assessment of the resolution?

Steven J. Sprouse
President
Republic of Dunlend

I thank my colleague from SCOS OJ for creating a neutral environment to facilitate this exchange of ideas. I suggested to the negative forums to do this, but they chose to continue to preach to the choir...

I, too, am stuck on Chicken Traders point 1: that of the short term nature of blood. It does seem that this problem creates one of two (?) problems: either much of the blood supply's life is spend in transit, or "UN" blood sits in bank preserves until they are sent to where needed. If another country is higher up on the need list, then someone from, say, Dunlend could be denied, in favor of someone from Chicken Traders. The government of Dunlend would nationalize such banks before it would allow this (no offense to Chicken Traders, of course)

Am I correct on this assessment of the resolution?

Steven J. Sprouse
President
Republic of Dunlend

I have sad news for those whose arguments are that blood cannot be stored for more than a few days. Actually frozen plasma, (which is what is needed most often), can be stored for quite awhile. However that is not the basis of my objection to this proposal.

My own nation had implimented compulsory organ donation and blood donation some time ago. We have no shortages. Therefore, untill all other UN member States also implement similar standards for their own nations, I feel it would be a proposal which punished nations like ours how have been looking after the health an wealfare of our people, and rewards liberal laziness by nations who do not have the backbone to make blood and organ donation compulsory.

very well I will retract my argument #1 on the grounds of misinformation however my other two points still stand and my defense loses no ground by losing this one argument....

I don't know if I put this in my list of arguements but I think though my arguement may not be true for plasma it is ture for organs and marrow, both of which are mentioned in the resolution

We're inclined to agree with Deagol: this would basically allow some nations to avoid the trouble and expense of setting up their own blood services, instead leeching all they needed from elsewhere.

What's more, we would be troubled by the prospect of blood from a nationalised health service going to a nation where all healthcare was privatised. We'd effectively be giving something that in our nation is given in good faith and free to another nation to trade as a commodity to the highest bidder.

This would trouble us more if we weren't in a highly politicized and left-wing region. If there are any unscrupulous opportunists in your region, though, I'd be very worried.

Our nation is sad to see that Chicken Traders have withdrawn their disagreement #1. If you did not know, the resolution calls for the World Blood Bank to oversee “quality and well-being of donors and receivers, blood, marrow and organ donations.” For some odd reason, I do not see plasma in that statement. I understand that blood and plasma are usually put together, but still it is not as if the two are the same thing. Saying “blood” but meaning “blood and plasma” is not justification for passage of this resolution.

That being said, I hope to see an unconcession, or the resolution be amended.

turrim--- my concession was only on the point of blood keeping over time... My point still remains in all areas not concerning blood...

As I look at the vote count however I am dismayed as the number of votes in the FOR column continues to rise more quickly than do those in the AGAINST column.... I urge the delegates among you to press forward in approving the proposal in waiting to increase the number of votes to pass a resolution to 2/3

I also believe that a new strategy is neccesary to reach the numbers required to defeat this proposal... measures must be taken to lobby UN member nations that do not read the forums so that they change votes or place votes when ordinarily they would not have all in opposition of the proposal.....

With the proposal of a UN Blood Bank my following objections would be a restatement of those already in opposition. However my questions would be as follows:

1. What monies will be allocated finding to construct worldwide facilities and overall cost of a non-profit staffed facility.

2. Should every citizen then be held liable to give blood causing a worldwide healthcare?

Just some of many questions thought of especially dealing with universal healthcare

Plasma is a short term substitute, and can not indefinately be used. It's only used in an emergency if the medical team/doctor can not blood type in a short period of time for the subject. In fact most times plasma is only used as long as it takes to identify the blood type of a patient before introducing actual the actual blood type.

So much for the efficient argument idea format

Then you were expecting a miracle arguement then?

Nothing ever comes efficiently. Maybe in the short term.

Since we are in the middle of a new globalization process (it's not the first one we experience), since the health systems will become more and more privatly managed, since the public ones are already totally underfunded, it would be a question of who's got more money (i.e. the better health-care system, just look at what's happening with AIDS-medicamentation in Africa today) to get enough blood (or plasma or marrow etc.). That would support also a black market for the material. So REGULATION IS NEEDED!
Of course, there has to be found a mode, how to distribute the material. Our nation is awaiting a long bureaucratic argument about this.

Ok, here are a few things wrong with this resolution:

1) Lack of funds: This will obviously cost money. The text of the resolution does not allocate any funds for this world blood bank. Where will this "money" come from? Will it come from other world organizations such as the EU? Will it come from the United States? This is one area that should definitely be looked at in order to fully understand the pros and cons of this resolution. This is one MAJOR CON!

2)Safety: As we all know, everyone could have a disease. This resolution does not provide for the testing of all blood donated. This tells us that we could be spreading diseases all around the world. This could lead to an even larger AIDS epidemic than what is going on in the status quo.

3) Storage: Where will this blood/plasma be kept? We will have to have many different storage sites across the world. Thus, it COSTS MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BUILD THEM!!! This resolution does much more harm than good. REJECT IT!

These are just a few of the inherent flaws presented within the text of the resolution. For these reasons, among the many others, you must REJECT this. A World Blood Bank will not do ANY good.

Thank you.

Ryan Wood
Commonwealth of Don Juan of Idaho

Don Juan of Idaho, these are very interesting arguments, I assume I should think this case over.

I thank you for your taking time to reconsider the issue.

Ryan Wood
Commonwealth of Don Juan of Idaho

The facilities are already there! Since there is a huge lack of blood (etc.) donations, which will not increase, unless blood (etc.) donation doesn't get compulsory, there's more than enough space for storing. The testing of the donations given is being funded Also I realized that in many countries organ donation already IS compulsory. This resolution is not about increase of donations (i.e. money needed)! They are not being enforced. It's about an encrease of organization. The benefits of a Blood World Bank outrange the minor drawbacks by far. The facilities are there, the resolution is not about increase of donations, so it doesn't "obviously cost more money"!

Ok, aside from the money issue, with the increased "organization," more donations will come in. Thus, more testing will be required. Therefore, this causes more loopholes to open in the testing, and contaminated blood/plasma will be in the 'system,' if you will. This is one "drawback" that CANNOT be overlooked.

The facilities are there? Where? Our nation does not have one, and I do not believe any member nation of our region has one either.

In which territories, regions, or nations do these facilities exist?

You will immediately hand over all documentation to the specific locations of these facilities to every member of the United Nations for review.

Did they just magically appear overnight? How can their be already built facilities, when the proposal has NOT even been passed. You overstep your authority if these banks have been created in such a fashion when the proposal is still up for consideration. I ask that these facilities be immediately shutdown until an enquiry can be made.

As I said, unless donations don't become compulsory, they will not increase. Governments are already advertising for more donations, and they don't increase, in fact they decrease. UN-involvement will not change this fact. There will be a money problem, if suddenly everybody get's philanthropic and donates blood (etc.). But, believe me, this will not happen!

The facilities are there? Where? Our nation does not have one, and I do not believe any member nation of our region has one either.

In which territories, regions, or nations do these facilities exist?

You will immediately hand over all documentation to the specific locations of these facilities to every member of the United Nations for review.

Did they just magically appear overnight? How can their be already built facilities, when the proposal has NOT even been passed. You overstep your authority if these banks have been created in such a fashion when the proposal is still up for consideration. I ask that these facilities be immediately shutdown until an enquiry can be made.
These facilities are generally of non-governmental type. The Red Cross and Red Crescent and Red Whatever are INDEPENDENT organisations.

Then we have to split payments to two different health groups. We already have government payed subsidies for health care, which includes blood donations, within our current region.

But now, your asking for an additional funding from nations with health care services already. The money has to come from somewhere. It either has to be pulled from current national health care services or, another service that the government already provides.

And we see no need to increase spending to a health service, in which we already provide our own citizens. And we refuse to help provide funds to basically pay for the health services of other nations. That is a burden in which we can not afford.

You can not dismiss the cost in money, because money is part of the issue. You have staff pay, equipment, cost of upkeep, insurance claims, storage facilities. All this costs money, and we already pay for this.

What you are proposing is for a new world health service, and THE MONEY HAS to come from somewhere. And your asking the nations to help pay for it. Unless your asking us to shutdown our own medical service providers in order to host one of these facilities, then I ask this question.

Why pay for something that we already have? We will not pay for our own medical services, and those of a world banking medical system at the same time, simply for no other reason than we can't afford it.

What money are you talking about? The facilities ARE there! And these facilities are empty, because only few people donate. In my opinion, the only problem is, and that's a more philosophical one, will the blood (etc.) be relativefairly distributed? Who determines, who get's the needed blood? Especiallay, if there's not enough? If there will be no coordination, there will be a 2-, 3-, 4- or whatever class world-society, depending on who's got more money, and that will query the UN's very existence!

But will the well-off nations give their blood freely to poor nations when blood is rare? It seems to be difficult to persuade them to support this proposal.

That's what the resolution is about! If they are members of the UN, they have to execute it! That's the reason why we have the UN!!!!!

"If there will be no coordination, there will be a 2-, 3-, 4- or whatever class society, depending on who's got more money"

If money is not the issue, then why bring it up? If it's to be provided to all UN member nations, then why would it matter who had the most money?

I remember hearing the term not so long ago, "No blood for money," in certain health circles.

Amor of Germ Nation, isn't it possible that they will dismiss it? ;)

Nevertheless, the economical situation of my country is very bad and it might be too hard to bear.

* The Rep of Komokom jumps up spluttering madly at this, this, travesty of international law, this, this, well, at this stage he breaks down spluttering too hard, but once he gets up and has a sip of water, argument pours forth... He takes the proposal at vote, cuts it to bits, and puts his argument below each sliver...

Whereas it has been observed that some nations are experiencing repeated or seasonal shortages of blood,

Maybe these nations should be doing more to fix this problem, you know, Funding. Man-power. Material.

If I remember correctly is there not an N.S. issue for this "issue" anyway. ? ? ?

Whereas it has been observed that most nations are experiencing acute shortages in donor organs,

Oh look, "most nations". But who?, I am yet to see proof of this "fact". Lets not forget, there is an N.S. issue for this "problem". And not all nations want/believe/allow in donor of body tissue/fluids anyway.

Whereas it has been observed that organs compatible to the victim of the body are often hard to find,

Yes, but this is due in part to the people of individual nations as well as the governments of these nations. Of coarse organs are hard to find. They come in the most part from dead people. And not all dead people have tissue healthy enough to donate anyway.

And they still in many countries have the right to decide what happens to their body when they pass away.

Last I checked, it was not as if the U.N. gave it to them in the first place...

:?

Whereas it has been observed that only 1 in 200,000 people have compatible marrow types,

Thats nice dear, a lovely fact, how is it relevant? Seems like something you've just thrown in... And lets not forget, how exactly can you fix this number if the result is derived from the bio-factors, genetics and such? You can't make a law to change the chemistry of our bodies.

Whereas it has been observed that marrow donors are rare,

And maybe we should look at the circumstances surrounding how marrow is donated? Hmmm? Considering where it is, were you alive I'd think it rather painful... And if its not, then we need education programs, not forking out cash to form some group to solve a problem that seems non-existent, judging by the smattering of proof you seem to have, that is, act as if you do...

Whereas it has been observed that every nation is susceptible to acute blood and organ shortages in the case of calamities,

Wrong, we have compulsory donation after death in my country (Komokom) so we have no such problems, what concerns me is your blowing up the issue and saying that we do have problems. After all, surely we fall under the "every-nation" stamp you've labelled (Or would it be lible'd :wink: ) As all with... ?

Whereas national blood reserves are largely left idle most of the times as fresh blood expires in a matter of days,

Wrong wrong wrong ! I think you mean a single component ! ! !

Blood is usually broken into four primary components when it comes to donor blood being given to a patient, these four are Red blood cells, Platelets, Plasma, and Immunoglobins, (White blood cells may also be considered a 5th component product but the others are the main ones). However, some of these components can be frozen or put in particular storage methods which increase their shelf life to weeks and weeks, your talking simply about un-processed donor blood. YOU must have a dodgy blood donor system... :wink:

Whereas regional or worldwide redistribution would provide an assurance against acute shortage and could level national shortages/surplusses,

Hello expensive logistical headache, good bye any possible effective answer to this perceived. Maybe if this was handled on a regional level there would be a chance.

A World Blood Bank is proposed in which all nation's donations would be included and redistributed on a regional scale meeting local needs.

Hands off my nations blood!, we are giving it so our people/ international/regional friends have it for medical reasons and in emergenies, we are not just going to throw it away to a private health system for free so they can sell it on. You've got no idea have you on how some countries operate health and emergency systems differently!

UN nations would need to open up their reserves to the World Blood Bank and partake in the funding of a centralized body that would coordinate the efforts of gathering, archiving and redistributing.

You no idea about blood, no idea about politics, no idea about health systems, no idea about what motivates people to donate and how some just don't want to, and no idea about N.S. issues already dealing with this. Curse you you fool, curse you.

These efforts are deemed compatible with the role of the Red Cross/Red Crescent and could/should be done in concordance with that organisation.

One would think it would already be so, but only because we give freely when we want to, how dare you misuse international law this way, to bully us and take away OUR blood AND ORGANS...

In order to safeguard quality and well-being of donors and receivers, blood, marrow and organ donations should meet the requirements put forward by the Red Cross/Red Crescent.

And of all the bloody cheek, you almost ignore safety and health concerns with invisible health regulations, while slapping on an organ donation RIDER CLAUSE. You propose "redistrabution" for our blood products and OUR ORGANS ! DONATED ORGANS no less, so, when the nations who have adequate levels have to "redistribute" to other less organised nations, what about them, when they get "bled" dry?

I don't get it, I waltz back into my U.N. membership to see a proposal so misguided it might just get in. Insanity, just insanity. AND IT IGNORES THE N.S. ISSUES THAT DEAL WITH ORGAN/TISSUE/BLOOD DONATION !

- The Rep of Komokom.

Komokom, thank you, eventually this was convincing.

Libereco will vote against this proposal.

Koko, It's nearly 11:30pm here where I am, and my eyes are going cross eyed this late as they are highly tired.

I couldn't follow a single paragraph you made, because of the sizes of the font, the multiple color solutions, all those quotes you did, and everything you wrote in between each quote. It's all gobbledy-gook to my eyes right now. And I dare say in the morning it isn't going to look much better either.

Have you ever thought about practicing responding to someone elses post instead of quoting every bit they write and responding to each quote. I could probably follow along more easily if more people would just respond. I seriously went blind on your last post there.

Salvoria has no objections to Komokom's method of reply. If Terran Assemblage has problems with their tiredness, perhaps they should convene to their quarters for the evening and re-address the problem when they are adequately refreshed?

Salvoria also wishes to assert its lack of support for the current resolution at vote. Its reasoning may be found with the reasoning of other nations earlier in this thread.

However, The Holy Empire of Salvoria would like to point out that for religious regions organ, blood and marrow donation is not an encouraged practice in our region. If this resolution at the end of the voting period appears to be on the verge of passing, Salvoria will abdicate its position in the United Nations.

I do in part apologise to those who don't follow my post, but thats how I do it, I found quoting each part of a proposal allows me to better set my arguments making it easier for those awake :wink: to follow my points against or for it. Plus, its fun to use php bb-code. I like it, I mean, hell, pretty colours know what I mean!

- The Rep of Komokom.

For me it is easier to follow, if you post this way.

Salvoria - you, at least, should have no problem whatsoever with this proposal. Why? Because it does nothing to even encourage donation of blood or tissues in your country; it simply means you have to share what you've got, which is nothing. Hell, you can even swipe some of your neighbours' organs if you need them for your hospitals but don't want your own people to donate.

Which is precisely why this proposal is so damaging.

For me it is easier to follow, if you post this way.

See, people love, yes they do !

:wink:

Well, in all serious-ness, I am glad people still get it. :)

- The Rep of Komokom.

As you wish mr. Parrot.

Komokom, although I did not sleep for maaany hours. ;)
_

Rehochipe, and what happens when others infect my population and many of my citizens have to die?

Mr Parrot? Leave off with the parrot rubbish,

Always with the parrot you are,

Tsk tsk tsk.

- The Rep of Komokom. :)

* The Rep of Komokom jumps up spluttering madly at this, this, travesty of international law, this, this, well, at this stage he breaks down spluttering too hard, but once he gets up and has a sip of water, argument pours forth... He takes the proposal at vote, cuts it to bits, and puts his argument below each sliver...


I, for one, am very appreciative of Rep. of Komokom's meticulous and thourough addressment of this resolution. (It saved me a hell of a lot of work :D )

As I really see no substantial support for this resolution in the forums, it is very sad to me to see that it is most likely going to win. But that is another thread.

Henrietta Chapman
Minister of Frogs
Boogidyloo

Love, I feel so loved !

Well, my ego does... :wink:

Now lets all link hands and chant out our will for the proposal to catch alight. And all those who voted yes. Ansd all those who do.

(Evil grin)

:D

(Errr, Kinda.)

- The Rep of Komokom.

where is the passus that we can remove all persons who don't see it the right way? :wink:

[OOC] Although the mechanics of blood and general Healthcare is not my field. I read all your arguments and I have come to one conclusion. Ok I'll admit that funding may (or should) not be an issue... after all, economics is not really a factor for this site, so for now the use of the words donations I won't argue.

[In Character] However, for Member nations of... say less that adequet testing procedures, could infect Many a nation with a new plaque that many other nations may not be equipt to defend against. - Con.

The Red Cross/Cresent has to deal with other disasters and thus they do know who needs the blood first. - Pro

The Red Cross/Cresent also has to deal with other disasters and thus can't have the manpower to manage such an undertaking. - Con.

With other nations being "high-tech" synthetic plasma and blood and other such fluids are being improved upon will help shortages in their nation - Con (after all. they will donate less leaving less in this bank)

Nations may not use synthetic anything nor genetically altered anything and feel this is an infringement on their beliefs by the UN. - Con

In light of these views (and Others) I suggest not a global Blood Bank but maybe a GLobal Health Network? To pass the information quickly and allowing the best solutions to reach the problem area. (nation needs blood now. Network contacts nearest UN Member nations and asks for donatons to be shipped via rapid trasit (over nite air or even special delivery) But then that's a whole new Resolution.

To the Republic of Komokom,

Your arguement has greatly influenced the Imperator's decision on this poorly thought out resolution. You brought to light several key flaws in the resolution and by doing so you only helped to seal the Imperator's decision. We thank you.

It is sad to know, however, that Malagassia didn't bother to post the draft of the resolution here, so that you may have cut this tumor from the UN body before it was exposed to the votes of all of NS.

:Consul Deviath Fyr

Although entitled "Blood bank", this proposal does attempt to sneak in wording about organ donation, which is a game issue we've already decided many times.

We like to keep our organs private.

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!

If using the same logic as the other resolutions. The blood bank is strickly Voluntary. If you don't want blood, you won't get it. If you don't want to give blood. You won't recieve it either.

Some Nations of my region also see this as an employment oppourtunity. For to avoid risk of infection or outbreak, each and every bag must be tested. thus large testing facilites can be built and staffed with newly trained technicians. Opportunities in transporting the blood to areas where it is needed as well as building and maintaining State of the Art storage facilities to help prolong the shelf life of fluids are also there.

By creating this resource, Disaster torn nations of the UN has a supply of life fluids (safely tested) to be sent to victims at a moments notice.

Granted, it's not mentioned where any of the blood will be stored, but this does get my region thinking of a region wide if not UN wide "Life Network." The side benefits do outweigh my previous objections. so I'm kinda siding with this one.

As the delegate of an all gay region, I have voted against this proposal as the rest of you don't want our blood anyway

Why? I for one don't believe that crap about sexual tendencies being genetic. If some of your blood is infected. our scientists can use that to help find cures. Who cares about anything else. After all, what you do in the privacy of your boarders is your business. Just as long as you don't force me to do something I don't want to, I don't care.

If you are in need of increasing your job sector, perhaps it would be better to look into expanding your current government health care services?

Unless it is your desire to profit from UN contracts? This would mean you would be attempting to get back more than you put into such a network.

We here in the vaults do not see the need for UN controlled blood banks, any nation wishing to have blood, organ, and bone marrow donations increased could follow in our glorious path by harvesting those of the dead, and paying the living to give some of what they have. They could also use techniques for cloning to make organs which are completely compatable with someone because they were grown from that person's cells. This resolution is a waste of our time and resources, as we of the vaults do not feel the need to care about the blood shortages of those nations who do nothing about their blood shortages. To be honest, our blood, organs, and marrow are properties of Vault 21, have always been properties of Vault 21, and will always be properties of Vault 21. We feel no compulsion to give our resources to other nations, and we have no desire to use the blood of other nation's peoples for our own citizens. We shall never support this resolution.
Sponsored by VaultTech

this one seems to come down to equity versus cost and safety..

On the safety side of things there are prion related diseases (CJD)to consider. Although relatively rare, there is so little known about the epidemiology of these diseases that opening up a potential door to their worldwide spread may be with present levels of understanding too risky. There is currently no effective method for testing blood that could be put into operation on this scale.

there is also the cost to consider, a single unit of blood in the UK costs about 200 pounds from donar to recipient. Clearly the project will need an enourmous budget and this will have to come from the richer nations..

Although the spirit of the proposal is laudable, we feel that at the moment there are on balance better ways of adressing world health inequalities, such as tackling the issues that poorer nations have with the aquisition of expensive drugs.. and health promotion.

"If life gives you lemons, make lemonaide... then sell it for a quarter a glass and put that money into life savings."

In other words, For this resolution, there is no restrictions on testing blood entering individual nations (there's no provision either.) therefore, the UN is leaving the testing requirements up to the individual nations. Is it wrong if I choose to turn that into an economic boost? You can do the same... heck, you can even get the infected blood packets and start finding cures for conditions and diseases with minimal risk to your own citizens.

There is no provision on what we can do with infected packets, there's no provision to test the blood, bone marrow and what not. and there is no provision that prevents me from digging into the donors history should an infected packet be found. There is also no time table set so I can set a ruling that ALL bio material needs stingent testing before leaving my nation as well as before entering my nation.

I choose to turn this around and use the resolutions vagueness and lacks to my benefit.

and just because we agree to it. (or it gets passed come hell or high-water) there is no clause saying it's Mandatory. after all, it does state that only nation's who contribute gets to draw from this bank.

I thank my collegues for their intelligent and unheated discussion on this topic. It is a civilized discussion between adults that allows UN proposals to get a fair and just hearing.

I will vote No. Please, understand my position:

1. It is yet another unfunded mandate being issued forth from the UN. We have had so many of these that force national governments to fund projects and departments that they should not have to do. Rather, it should be that ANY resolution that would require funding to operate-like the last resolution on the creation of a UN version of a Department of Education--should contain in it a funding mechanism. As this resolution proposal does not provide for funding of this new UN layer, it is an unfunded mandate being pushed down to member nations whose budgets are already straining under national needs as well as providing funding for those previous unfunded UN mandates.

2. Both the Red Cresent and the Red Cross discriminate against all gay men. They will not take blood donations from them as a whole segment of the population--which is discriminatory. Rather than testing the blood supply on a regular basis from recent doners, they exclude millions upon millions of willing doners. They claim the fear of HIV, but do not discriminate against bisexuals or heterosexuals at all--where there is just as much a risk from HIV infections than from the gay male population.

Please--until those disciminatory practices are reversed, and until some mechanism of funding is provided for--vote NO.

Thanks,
Torvan

ok, that the Red Cross / Red Cresent discriminates... that's something I didn't know.

However, The funding part is moot. I just found out that in Real Life, the UN is funded almost totally by donations. if funding needs to be hammered out Nothing's gonna get passed. Yeah, I screamed funding in the past but that was before I realized that the UN is totally funded by donations.

so unless someone is going to fix a budget for the UN, we're sweating the details too much... in the funding area anyway... unless it's something stupid like fixing everybodies roads for something.

We the peoples representatives of Buzzmania would like to point out that as a world leader in cloning technology, we have the capability to reproduce any organ or tissue needed to sustain human life, or when necessary, to create a full duplicate of the injured person for transfusions or complete overhaul. Our rates for these processes are very reasonable, and if the UN would like us to act as a central organ/blood bank, we are well equipped to do so, at first on a regional basis, and shortly planet wide. As far as the potability of blood and tissues, what better way to send replacement parts, than in a living host? And if you have an exact duplicate of yourself, you will always have a source for fresh parts.
Ghoul De Crypt
Minister of Technology
Buzzmania

I thank those who bothered to read my arguments against this proposal. And I also applaud the many well thought arguments both pro and con on this proposal. However, as I read the posts here I am struck by how many see this as merely a matter of unfunded mandates, or cost effectiveness.

At the heart of this matter lies a much more serious and dangerous ideology. One that abuses international law to trample on the rights of indivudual nations to reap the rewards of their own hard work, and to dole out those benifits which we have worked so dilligently for in the name of our own citizens, to those who would sponge off the teat of international welfare.

I am sickened by the fact that according to the votes cast so far, this proposal will go to an easy passage, and that liberal intellectual laziness will have been the root of why it passed. There are far too many who will have read the proposal and will not have taken the time to research the real need for such an expansion of international law into what should be the realm of treaty between nations and or regions. Far too many will not take the time to think about what the eroding of invididual freedom will mean to their own nations, or consider the cost of selling out their rights to a world body that has neither the will to stop abuses of international law, nor the fortitude to put a brake on its own powers. Therefore, if this proposal passes I wil stand in opposition to this blatent misuse of law even if it costs our nation its membership in this body. Freedom is never won without cost. Stand for your rights and curtail the powers of this over reaching international body now.

Alaric the Red
Supreme commander of Deagol Deaod

Following Komokom's resounding argument, I have decided to change my vote on this proposal to "no".

Basically I think that it's a good idea badly implemented. I would suggest a conditional implementation, such as a nation has just undergone a natural disaster and is in need of blood.

agreed Danjohn but that is still no reason to pass this resolution. If passed as stands this resolution will be a travesty to that which the UN stands for. It MUST BE VOTED DOWN...

I call all readers of this post board to lobby until this thing fails.

agreed Danjohn but that is still no reason to pass this resolution. If passed as stands this resolution will be a travesty to that which the UN stands for. It MUST BE VOTED DOWN...

I call all readers of this post board to lobby until this thing fails.

agreed Danjohn but that is still no reason to pass this resolution. If passed as stands this resolution will be a travesty to that which the UN stands for. It MUST BE VOTED DOWN...

I call all readers of this post board to lobby until this thing fails.

sry about the multiple posts.....

my web sever was havin problems

My presence has been often requested in the UN forum, though I've refrained from doing so until now because they are so very very slow, and often in the past, wouldn't even load at all for me. However, within the past three resolutions, numerous other delegates have requested that I come and re-think the positions I've taken by giving my attention to the opponents of the aforementioned proposals.

I hope that I may be a useful and contributing member of this forum, and if my presence here presents insurmountable difficulties, I will gladly withdraw from your debates, and simply debate the various proposals and resolutions within the confines of my region's message board.

With that said, I must now (for the sake of debate and furthering the legislative process) turn my attention to presenting my position on the current UN resolution at vote.

I support this resolution, as do my constituents. I feel that, under the supervision of the subcommittee to be formed for this purpose, a World Blood Bank could substantially improve the distribution and collection processes currently being employed by the Red Cross/Crescent, and has the potential to improve the methods employed by said organization(s) to test the blood collected for possible contamination and infection.

This may not seem like a particularly noteworthy problem, given that the methods in use are quite effective, but I've heard reports within recent years of various infections being passed by transfused units of blood. The frequency with which such infections occur is minimal, perhaps only one in one million or ten million recipients of whole blood transfusion being at risk for infection, but that's simply one too many to my mind.

I am also aware that in most cases, a simple blood plasma donation is equally effective in the place of whole blood transfusion, if not more so. Plasma has none of the complications associated with "type" matching, and is rarely (if ever) immunologically rejected by the body. However, there are times when a mere plasma transfusion isn't sufficient to save a person's life, especially if the person in question has been injured sufficiently (or simply bled enough prior to adequate medical treatment) and their red blood cell count has dropped below the body's ability to adequately replace the missing cells.

I'm aware that this may seem like just another step along the road of "Big Government", and I'm just as wary as any of you are of such a path's conclusion. However, I feel that this particular resolution may improve the health and prolong (in some cases) the lives of untold numbers of people around the globe, and if we truly do end up as another "Big Government", those people will have the strength to rise against us and vote our political power out from under us.

In closing, I would like to say that I feel that this collaboration between the Red Cross/Crescent, and the World Blood Bank (to be formed) would significantly improve the process by which donated units of whole blood are distributed on an international scale, and most assuredly has the potential to improve the process by which donated organs are made available for transplantation. At the very least, having a readily accessible, internationally updated database doctors around the world could referrence for various "available" organs would improve the chances that a match would be found.

I apologize for having been so verbose in this post, and I strongly hope that my statement was conveyed to you, my audience, in a clear and coherent (if not precisely concise) manner. And I'd like to thank those of you who sent me telegrams inviting me to share my views with the rest of the UN here in the forum.

Though blood will probably sit around and the effectiveness overall will be limited in the early stages, The CRO feels it is vital for an organization of this magnitude to have its foundings today and not tomorrow.

The CRO votes in favor of this as should other nations with compassion to fellow man...

It seems to the leadership of Buzzmania that a body such as the UN, which by its very nature stands for the hope of eventual unification of mankind, and the stable governance of our planet, should be supported without equivocation by all those who claim to be members therein. It is the understanding of Buzzmania and it's leadership, that the purpose of the United Nations is the cojoint and mutual understanding of all our diverse nations, and to provide a body which it is to be hoped will one day bring an end to the petty warring and injustice which has afflicted all of us since the dawn of time. We in buzzmania see the UN as a prototype for world government, and as such, feel that participation in such an endeavor necessitates a willingness to abrogate the rights of the few, in obediance to the wishes of the many. This we feel is democratic utopia, wherein the majority rules and the minorities rights are also protected.
President Scotty
Buzzmania

This was written not only in response to the blood bank issue, but as a plea to all members to commit to making the UN the forum for all of the debates that will shape the future of mankind

How are the protections of the minority protected by a resolution which strips the fruits of hard labor by a few nations who have provided for the health and welfare of their citizens, and hand them over to the majority of those who would like to only stand off to the side and siphon off the resources of the minority? Where is the justice in forcing a nation which has no shortage of blood or organ supply due to its own diligence, to supply the precious resources which ensure the health and welfare of it citizens to nations which have not had the fortitude to make the hard choices which are necessary to provide for their people.
Not only is this proposal a bad idea due to thew fact it lies outside of the scope of what should be within the UN's regulatory powers, it is a blatant trampling of the rights of the minority of us who have made the choices that are needed to ensure our citizens are provided for. I call again for those who recognize this abuse of international law to stand together to defeat yet another encroachment upon sovereign powers of individual nations by those who would see us in the yolk of an oppressive one-world government.

Alaric the red
Supreme commander of Deagol Deaod

In addition to all of the other compelling arguments against this proposal, the people of Dejicharat must quibble with this final point. All of the blood, organs, and other icky bits that the UN will require its members to contribute to this World Blood bank will be distributed by the Red Cross/Red Crescent. While Dejicharat has the highest regard for the ICRC, it is not a UN chartered or regulated body. If the UN must bank the world's blood and organs, why not distribute them through the World Health Organization, part of the UN infrastructure? Not only does this resolution remove blood and organ donations from the control of member nations, it removes them from the control of the UN.

The Kingdom of Dejicharat cannot support this resolution. Nyo!

And on page two of the thread you should find my colourful rant against the proposal, where I rip it to bits, argue against each bit, and prove once and for all I am addicted to php bb code !

:D

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff

- DP -

"Bloody Server"

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

I try to look for reasons why i should do something and that is how i make my decisions. I never make decisions by arguements against. However, i can't find one thing in this resolution that would make me want to vote for it.

Vote No

I shall vote against. This resolution only adds people to already long waiting list. There is no democratic or moral way to decide which person recieves what from the bank when there is a shortage. If there is only one heart that is a match to 12 people from 12 different countries, I dont see anyway possible way for the UN to decide which person shall recieve the donation. Also there is no justifiable way to allow 11 other people to wait and die. I urge people to vote against and support artifical organ research and cloning.

Surley to god you people are capable of caring for your own people. I say no to the this crazy blood bank proposal. Take care of your own. Damn.

Yet another happy happy feel good proposal which on closer examination is dangerous and unfair, yet looks like passing.

Something needs to change in the UN itself. Perhaps the delegates need increased voting power so that those who closely examine proposals are able to carry more weight in the actual decisions made.

Sorry, but Clan Korval has strong objections to handing out our genetic material for every Tom, Dick and Koffi to play around with.

If you want our blood, come and get it.

Be prepared to spill quite a bit of your own in the process.

Nova yosGalan

Okay, since some people have serious issues with the proposal, I will adress some of the most unfair allegations:

"The whole world will suffer from AIDS thanks to you, you moron!"

The resolution clearly states the donations should meet the requirements put forward by the Red Cross... Some of you don't seem to have been bothered checking those apparently but rather wasted time announcing a great epidemic.


Accupuncture
Donors who have undergone acupuncture treatments are acceptable as long as the donor can confirm that the needles used in the treatment were sterile. Donors who cannot confirm that sterile needles were used in the acupuncture treatment are deferred from donating for 12 months.

Age
You must be at least 17 years old to donate to the general blood supply. Learn more about the reasons for a lower age limit. There is no upper age limit for blood donation as long as you are well with no restrictions or limitations to your activities.

Allergy, Stuffy Nose, Itchy Eyes, Dry Cough
Acceptable as long as you feel well, have no fever, and have no problems breathing through your mouth

Antibiotics
Wait 2 days after finishing antibiotics for an infection (bacterial or viral). Acceptable if you are taking antibiotics to prevent an infection, for example, following dental procedures or for acne. Antibiotics for acne do not disqualify you from donating. If you have a temperature above 99.5 F, you may not donate until the fever is passed.

Aspirin
See “Medications”

Asthma
Acceptable as long as you are not having difficulty breathing at the time of donation and you otherwise feel well. Medications for asthma do not disqualify you from donating.

Autoimmune Diseases
You are not eligible to donate if you have some types of generalized autoimmune disease including systemic lupus erythematosus and multiple sclerosis.

Birth Control
Women taking birth control pills are acceptable.

Blood Pressure, High
Acceptable as long as your blood pressure is below 180 systolic (first number) and below 100 diastolic (second number) at the time of donation. Medications for high blood pressure do not disqualify you from donating.

Blood Pressure, Low
Acceptable as long as you feel well when you come to donate. If your blood pressure normally runs low, it may be more difficult for your body to adjust to the volume loss following donation, especially if you are dehydrated. Drinking extra water before and after donation is important.

Blood Transfusion
Wait for 12 months after receiving a blood transfusion from another person in the United States. You may not donate if you received a transfusion since 1980 in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man), Gibraltar or Falkland Islands. This requirement is related to concerns about variant CJD, or 'mad cow' disease. Learn more about variant CJD and blood donation.

Cancer
Acceptable if the cancer was treated with only surgery or radiation, and it has been at least 5 years since treatment was completed with no cancer recurrence. If your cancer was treated with chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or immunotherapy, you are not eligible to donate. If you had leukemia or lymphoma, including Hodgkins Disease, you are not eligible to donate. Some low-risk cancers including squamous or basal cell cancers of the skin do not require a 5 year waiting period.

Precancerous conditions of the uterine cervix do not disqualify you from donation if the abnormality has been treated successfully.

You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation.

Cholesterol, high
Acceptable. Medications to lower the cholesterol level do not disqualify you from donating.

Chronic Illnesses
Most chronic illnesses are acceptable as long as you feel well, the condition is under good control, you have an adequate hemoglobin level and your temperature is normal when you come to donate. Chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's Disease do not automatically disqualify you from donating. You should discuss your condition with the health historian at the time of donation.

Clotting Disorders
If your blood does not clot normally, you should not donate since you may have excessive bleeding where the needle was placed. For the same reason, if you are taking any "blood thinner" (such as coumadin or heparin) you should not donate. If you are on aspirin, it is OK to donate blood. However, you must be off of aspirin for at least 36 hours in order donate platelets by apheresis.

Cocaine
Wait 12 months after using cocaine or other street drugs through your nose before attempting to donate blood. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis and HIV. Learn more about hepatitis and blood donation.

Cold, Flu, Sore Throat
Wait if you have a fever or a productive cough (bringing up phlegm)
Wait if you feel unwell on the day of donation.
Wait 2 days after you have completed antibiotic treatment for sinus, throat or lung infection.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)
If you ever received a corneal (eye) transplant, a dura mater (brain covering) transplant or human pituitary growth hormone, you are not eligible to donate. Those who have a close blood relative who had Creutzfeld-Jacob disease or who is in a family that has been told they have a genetic risk for Creutzfeld-Jacob disease are also not eligible to donate. Learn more about CJD.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Variant (vCJD); "Mad Cow Disease"
See under Travel Outside of U.S. Learn more about vCJD and blood donation.

Dental Procedures
Acceptable after teeth cleaning, scaling, root canal, fillings and tooth extractions as long as there is no infection present.
Wait for 3 days after having other types of oral surgery, or after treatment for an abscess or infection in the mouth.
Wait 2 days after finishing antibiotics for a dental infection.

Depression, Anxiety
Acceptable as long as you feel well and comfortable with the blood donation process. Medications for depression or anxiety do not disqualify you from donating.

Diabetes mellitus
Acceptable two weeks after starting insulin.
Medications to lower your glucose level do not disqualify you from donating. Those who since 1980, received an injection of bovine (beef) insulin made from cattle from the United Kingdom are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about variant CJD, or 'mad cow' disease. Learn more about variant CJD and blood donation.

Donation Intervals
Wait at least 8 weeks between whole blood (standard) donations.
Wait at least 3 days between plateletpheresis donations.
Wait at least 16 weeks between double red cell (automated) donations.

Epilepsy, Seizures
Acceptable as long as you have been seizure-free for the last 3 months. Medications for seizures do not disqualify you from donating.

Heart Disease
In general , acceptable as long as you have no restrictions on your physical activities, take no medications for heart disease other than aspirin, and have no current ( within the last 6 months) heart-related symptoms such as chest pain.
Wait at least 6 months following an episode of angina.
Wait at least 6 months following a heart attack.
Wait at least 6 months after bypass surgery or angioplasty.
If you have a pacemaker, you may donate as long as your pulse is between 50 and 100 beats per minute with no more than a small number of irregular beats, and you meet the other heart disease criteria. You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation.

Heart Murmur, Heart Valve Disorder
Acceptable if you have a heart murmur as long as you have not had symptoms in the last 6 months, have no restrictions on your physical activity and are not taking any medications for heart disease other than prophylactic antibiotics (to prevent infections) or aspirin.

Hemochromatosis
American Red Cross does not accept individuals with hemochromatosis as blood donors for other persons at this time. Red Cross will continually re-evaluate this policy as more information accumulates.

Hemoglobin, Hematocrit, Blood Count
Acceptable if you have a hemoglobin at or above 12.5 g/dL.
Acceptable if you have a hematocrit at or above 38%.

Hepatitis, Jaundice
If you had hepatitis (inflammation of the liver) caused by a virus, or unexplained jaundice (yellow discoloration of the skin), since age 11, you are not eligible to donate blood. This includes those who had hepatitis with infectious mononucleosis.

Acceptable if you had jaundice or hepatitis caused by something other than a viral infection, for example: medications, Gilbert's disease, bile duct obstruction, alcohol, gallstones or trauma to the liver.

If you ever tested positive for hepatitis B or hepatitis C , at any age, you are not eligible to donate, even if you were never sick or jaundiced from the infection.

Hepatitis Exposure
Wait 12 months after close contact with someone who is sick with viral hepatitis. Close contact is defined as sexual contact or sharing the same household, kitchen, dormitory, or toilet facilities.

Wait 12 months after detention in a correctional institution or residence in a long-term psychiatric institution.

Wait 12 months after receiving a blood transfusion (unless it was your own “autologous” blood, blood injections, tattoo, non-sterile needle stick/body piercing or exposure to someone else's blood.

Wait 12 months following a human bite, if it broke the skin.

Wait 12 months after using cocaine or other street drugs through your nose.

Herpes
Acceptable as long as you are feeling well.

HIV, AIDS
Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:

you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
you have ever used a needle, even once, to take drugs or steroids that were not prescribed by a physician;
you have taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;
you were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977 (This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O. Learn more about HIV Group O.)
you have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex since 1977;
you have ever had a positive test for HIV virus;
you have symptoms of HIV infection including unexplained weight loss, night sweats, blue or purple spots on or under the skin, long-lasting white spots or unusual sores in your mouth, lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin that last more than a month, fever higher than 99 degrees that lasts more than 10 days, diarrhea lasting over a month, or persistent cough and shortness of breath;
Wait for 12 months after close contact with someone who is at an increased risk for HIV infection. This occurs when paying to have sex, as a result of rape, or when having sex with an IV drug user.

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRP)
Women on hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms and prevention of osteoporosis are eligible to donate.

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
See “Venereal Diseases”

Hypertension, High Blood Pressure
See “Blood Pressure, High

Immunization, Vaccination
Acceptable if you were vaccinated for influenza, tetanus or meningitis, providing you are symptom-free and fever-free.

Wait 4 weeks after immunizations for German Measles (Rubella), MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) and Chicken Pox.

Wait 2 weeks after immunizations for Red Measles (Rubeola), Mumps, Polio (by mouth), and Yellow Fever vaccine.

Wait 7 days after immunization for Hepatitis B as long as you are not given the immunization for exposure to hepatitis B.


Smallpox vaccination and did not develop complications
Wait 2 months (60 days) from the date of having a smallpox vaccination as long as you have had no complications. Complications may include skin reactions beyond the vaccination site or general illness related to the vaccination.
Smallpox vaccination and developed complications
Wait 14 days after all vaccine complications have resolved or 2 months (60 days) from the date of having had the smallpox vaccination whichever is the longer period of time. You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation. Complications may include skin reactions beyond the vaccination site or general illness related to the vaccination.
Smallpox vaccination – close contact with someone who has had the smallpox vaccine in the last eight weeks and you did not develop any skin lesions or other symptoms.
Eligible to donate.
Smallpox vaccination – close contact with someone who has had the vaccine in the last eight weeks and you have since a developed localized skin lesion only
Wait 2 months (60 days) from the date of the first skin lesion or sore. You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation. Complications may include skin reactions or general illness related to the exposure.
Smallpox vaccination – close contact with someone who has had the vaccine in the last eight weeks and you have since developed localized skin lesions and other complications
Wait 14 days after all vaccine complications have resolved or 2 months (60 days) from the date of the first symptom whichever is the longer period of time. You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation. Complications may include skin reactions or general illness related to the exposure.

Infections
If you have a fever or an active infection, wait until the infection has passed before donating blood.

Wait 2 days after finishing antibiotics for an infection (bacterial or viral).

Infections with common herpes virus (cold sores or genital herpes) and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) are acceptable as long as you feel well and do not have a fever.

Those who have had infections with Chagas Disease, babesiosis or leishmaniasis are not eligible to donate blood.

See also Antibiotics, Infectious Mononucleosis, Hepatitis, HIV, Syphilis/Gonorrhea, and Tuberculosis.

Infectious Mononucleosis, "Mono"
Acceptable if you had infectious mononucleosis ("mono") once the infection has passed, as long as you did not have hepatitis with the mononucleoisis.

Intravenous Drug Use
Those who have ever used IV drugs that were not prescribed by a physician are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis and HIV. Learn more about hepatitis and blood donation.

Lyme disease
If this is a chronic condition you cannot donate. If you were treated with antibiotics and completely recovered, you can donate 12 months after the last dose of antiobiotics was taken.

Malaria
Wait 3 years after completing treatment for malaria. Wait 12 months after returning from a trip to an area where malaria is found. Wait 3 years after moving to the United States after living in a country where malaria is found. Learn more about malaria and blood donation.

Marijuana, "Weed", "Pot", "Ganga"
Acceptable as long as you are not under the influence of marijuana at the time of donation.

Medications In almost all cases, medications will not disqualify you as a blood donor. Your eligibility will be based on the reason that the medication was prescribed. As long as the condition is under control and you are healthy, blood donation is usually permitted.

There are a handful of drugs that are of special significance in blood donation. Persons on these drugs have waiting periods following their last dose before they can donate blood:

Accutane (isoretinoin), Proscar (finasteride), and Propecia (finasteride) - wait 4 weeks .
Arava (leflunomide) - wait 3 months
Avodart (dutasteride) - wait 6 months from the last dose
Aspirin, no waiting period for donating blood. However you must wait 36 hours after taking aspirin or any medication containing aspirin before donating platelets by apheresis
Chemotherapy-type drugs used for conditions other than cancer ( examples: bleomycin, interferon, methotrexate) - wait 4 weeks from last dose
Coumadin, heparin or other prescription blood thinners- you should not donate since your blood will not clot normally. If your doctor discontinues your treatment with blood thinners, wait 5 days before returning to donate.
human pituitary-derived growth hormone at any time - you are not eligible to donate blood
Lupron used for condition other than cancer - wait 4 months from last dose
Plavix - wait 36 hours after taking this medication before donating platelets by apheresis
Soriatane (acitretin) - wait 3 years
Tegison (etretinate) at any time - you are not eligible to donate blood
Ticlid - wait 36 hours after taking this medication before donating platelets by apheresis
If you ever took Tegison (etretinate), you are not eligible to donate blood. If you ever took human pituitary-derived growth hormone, you are not eligible to donate blood. If you take aspirin, you can donate blood. However you must wait 36 hours after taking aspirin or any medication containing aspirin before donating platelets by apheresis. If you take Ticlid or Plavix, wait 36 hours after taking these medications before donating platelets by apheresis. If you are taking prescription blood thinners such as Coumadin or heparin, you should not donate since your blood will not clot normally. If your doctor discontinues your treatment with blood thinners, wait 5 days before returning to donate.

Menstruation
Women may donate during their period if feeling well on the day of donation.

Organ/Tissue Transplants
Wait 12 months after receiving an organ or tissue transplant from another person. This includes bone and dental powder. If you are taking medications to prevent rejection of the organ or tissue you are not eligible to donate.

If you ever received a corneal (eye) transplant or a dura mater (brain covering) transplant, you are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about the brain disease, Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (CJD). Learn more about CJD and blood donation.

Piercing (ears, body), Electrolysis
Acceptable as long as the instruments used were sterile.

Wait 12 months if there is any question whether or not the instruments used were sterile and free of blood contamination. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis. Learn more about hepatitis and blood donation.

Pregnancy, Nursing
Persons who are pregnant are not eligible to donate. Wait 6 weeks after giving birth. Acceptable if you are nursing, or recently had an elective abortion.

Sexually Transmitted Disease
Wait 12 months after treatment for syphilis or gonorrhea.

Sickle Cell
Acceptable if you have sickle cell trait. Those with sickle cell disease are not eligible to donate.

Skin Disease, Rash, Acne
Acceptable as long as the skin over the vein to be used to collect blood is not affected. If the skin disease has become infected, wait until the infection has cleared before donating. Taking antibiotics to control acne does not disqualify you from donating.

Surgery
Acceptable once the wound is healed and stitches are dissolved or removed, as long as the underlying condition is also acceptable in a blood donor. Wait 2 days after having stitches or staples for lacerations. If a laceration has become infected, wait until the infection has cleared before donating. Wait 12 months if you had a blood transfusion from another person during surgery.

Syphilis/Gonorrhea
Wait 12 months after being treated for syphilis or gonorrhea.

Tattoo
Wait 12 months after a tattoo. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis. Learn more about hepatitis and blood donation.

Tuberculosis
Acceptable if you have a positive skin test for tuberculosis, or if you are receiving antibiotics for a positive TB skin test only. If you are being treated for a tuberculosis infection, wait until treatment is successfully completed before donating.

Travel Outside of U.S., Immigration
Wait 12 months after travel in an area where malaria is found. Wait 3 years after moving to the United States after living in a country where malaria is found. Persons who have spent long periods of time in countries where "mad cow disease" is found are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about variant Creutzfeld Jacob Disease (vCJD). Learn more about vCJD and donation. Persons who were born in or who lived in certain countries in Western Africa, or who have had close contact with persons who were born in or who lived in certain West African countries are not eligible to donate. This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O. Learn more about HIV Group O, and the specific African countries where it is found.

Venereal Diseases
See also “Sexually Transmitted Disease”
Wait 12 months after treatment for syphilis or gonorrhea.

Weight
You must weigh at least 110 Lbs to be eligible for blood donation for your own safety. Blood volume is in proportion to body weight. Donors who weight less than 110Lbs may not tolerate the removal of the required volume of blood as well as those who weigh more than 110Lbs. There is no upper weight limit as long as your weight is not higher than the weight limit of the donor bed/lounge you are using. You can discuss any upper weight limitations of beds and lounges with your local health historian.

"The blood will have gone bad if it has to travel to a centralized bank and then back again, you moron!"

Coordination is centralized, not the donations themselves. A centralized system -much like the centralized emergency centrals for ambulances, fire brigades and police in most nations- tends to work better and more rapidly. Rather than having to go through the process three times. I don't suppose hospitals in your country are build on top of a fire brigade or police station. :roll:

In the case of disaster, this is a more reliable system than having to count on volunteers cause it's exactly then that the quality of blood gets compromised (as there's no time to check every donation). It's also then that there's a need for large amounts of fresh blood (and not different factions of blood which indeed can be preserved much longer).

"Blood doesn't expire in days, moron!"

Fresh blood does and as mentioned above, this is what is mostly needed in the aftermath or during a calamity. In many cases, there are bilateral agreements between nations to assist each other already. Yet that wouldn't work in a regional disaster.
The US, Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, France and Portugal (currently facing one because of Jacob Creuzfeld occurrences in their respective countries), Spain, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Poland, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, India, Pakistan, Cambodia, China and probably more have reported (sometimes only seasonal) shortages of blood. Now if you know that of the 178 countries that reported blood donations to the World Health Organisation, 60% of the blood being from 'developed' countries - 40 of 'developing' countries where incidentally 82% of the world population live, I guess you can say there's a shortage in most countries.

"Marrow donations are low because the technique is so painful and risky"

Please update your information, it hasn't been like that for many years now. The new technique uses a substance (by injection) that stimulates growth of the desired cells so that they spill into more easily accessible blood vessels and are extracted using a machine while the rest of the blood returns to the body... Except for taking more time than a regular donation, there's no risk nor more pain involved.

"It's gonna cost me my new palace, sick moron!"

If your nation has a fairly adequate system already in place, the only additional costs will be chipping in on the centralized administration and maybe making your system more compatible when it comes to indexing and so on. As somebody already mentioned, the infrastructure is already largely there, the resolution foresees in the harmonisation, transparency and exchangeability of the different structures.

"It's poorly written cause you're a moron!"

It might be, English is not my native tongue. But the UN has more than one official language. Maybe I'll post the next one in French or Chinese.

A couple of minor problems with this line of approach:

The resolution clearly states the donations should meet the requirements put forward by the Red Cross

We're not entirely sure this world has a Red Cross or a Red Crescent - we're aware of their existence in that entirely fictional world that some other nations like to go play around in, but that's it. It would have been good to get these guidelines (or at least a rough summary of them) into the proposal.

Now if you know that of the 178 countries that reported blood donations to the World Health Organisation, 60% of the blood being from 'developed' countries - 40 of 'developing' countries where incidentally 82% of the world population live, I guess you can say there's a shortage in most countries.

We're not familiar with the countries quoted. Are they from that fictional world too?

But seriously, folks, please don't assume a problem must exist here just because it exists in that other world. The Educational Committee proposal was bad enough, with its assumption that all of our schools are falling to pieces just because that seems to be happening in a fictitious place called "America"...

Yes come on and get my blood. You will have to wipe it off your bayonettes. My citizens are capable of supporting their own needs. We dont want your stinking blood and you shall NOT have ours.

I agree that something needs to be done. However, a role that would be better suited for a UN organization would be a group that assists each regional organization with data management and raising donations for critical event (natural disasters, war, famine...). Under normal conditions, each region should be responsible for it's own needs and if a region consistently can not mantain a sufficent supply for their region, then the UN organization should know this (statistically) and step in to assist the regional organization (consult) in finding a solution to raise their supply levels. If necessary, the UN organization can also receive and facilitate international donations for crisis situations where international support is offered. In no way should a UN organization replace regional assets, enhance yes, replace never.

If an organization were to set these goals, I would support it. There is also a need for this type of organization for enhancing to world's regional food supplies but that is for another proposal. As the current proposal stands, I am voting NO.

After looking in on the number of votes it seems to me that I must conclude that this badly written, ill thought out proposal will go on to passing. I too will resist any attempts by UN officials, or those who claim to be working on their behalf to access our nations supply of blood and organs.

As an aside, if there are any nuclear weapons scientists who were perhaps looking for new employment oppertunities, please, come check out or generous benifits packages as well as government housing in beautiful planned comunities close to good schools and recreation areas.

Aleric the Red
Supreme Commander of Deagol Deaod

All this resolution is is a cheap loop around for those who would gladly see the entire world subjugated under the iron banner of the "United Nations" to further thier choke-hold on on freedom under the guise of "internationalism".

Friends, brothers, patriots! We must not go down like this! In this enternal struggle of freedom vs. oppression we cannot afford to give the evil ones that very thing which makes us human: our very own bodies! Blood and organs are items of the utmost intemecy. Not mere toys to be thrown around by government of any kind. Much less a corrupt, domineering group and it's kick-back recieving cronies who seek to conquer not only our hearts ( the organ.. get it :) ) but also our minds!

It is for this reason that I urge all freedom loving peoples of the world to vote yes for freedom, yes for liberty, yes for the dying concept of the individual man, and vote NO for global fascism and the destruction of our civil rights! In the name of all that has not yet fallen into the iron blue shackles vote NO on this resolution and send it back to the depths of the communo-collectivist hell that it came from!

Yeaargh!

Pro, Blood is good.
Con, it doesn't actually increase global or national blood supplies.
Pro, increased funding.
Con, national blood services undermined.

If necessary, the UN organization can also receive and facilitate international donations for crisis situations where international support is offered. In no way should a UN organization replace regional assets, enhance yes, replace never.

As the current proposal stands, I am voting NO.

That is exactly my nation's stance as well.

I would suggest that if this resolution fails (which is unlikely) that points such as those raised by McCrea be addressed in future bills.

10kMichael

Malagassia, while you deserve some credit for displaying the list of informatives regarding blood donation, the problem is that the Red Cross mentioned is the one formed here in Nation States by "our" United Nations, and no blood/organ donation rules or even a directive for such was ever mentioned/listed/compiled.

Maybe an amendment of some sort should be made to the IRCO for this first before this blood donor proposal is passed. Though I doubt enough people would agree and vote it down to allow pre-emptive legislature for it, huh, its common sense after all, and the Sheep are well know for avoiding THAT...

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

However, despite the lackadaisical wording it is a guarantee that it will go through: he is also right in that. All resolutions that make it before the general body pass, as the majority of member states are represented by uncritical thinkers.

The delegates hold the true power in the U.N. They are the de-facto governing body of the universe. I recommended to all member states that you quietly withdraw your endorsement from your regional representative.

Also, you might consider strangling them.

That is all.

the DSH is not going to vote on this - I can see the appeal of it, but am concerned on several fronts which I don't have time to get into here.

I'm going to monitor this subject and decide based upon the arguements, but thus far I choose to abstain.

To ClarkNovinia : Correct, it will pass,

...

Incorrect though, as not all proposals pass, there have been several which did not I think. Though I can not remember exactly what they were called, those ones fal through both the cracks of the proposal list and the ones in my mind, :wink:

To Hirota : Monitor darn'd fast, it'll pass into law t'moz. :wink:

...

Grrr the Sheep. :roll:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

(...)the Red Cross mentioned is the one formed here in Nation States by "our" United Nations(...)
Yes and who is to decide then that AIDS does exist but the Red Cross doesn't? As there has been no official UN warning by "our" UN, there's no reason one should assume that it exists in this realm.

(...)this badly written, ill thought out proposal(...)
Comparing to other UN resolutions that have passed, it's not even *that* badly written... in my humble opinion.

The question I wish to pose to the General Assembly, on behalf of both my own fellow Gogownians and the citizens of the region of Dearth, for whom I have the honour of speaking, is this:

Would the blood bank resolution effectively bring about an enforced blood-donation system in UN member-states, similar to the enforced organ-donation system some countries at the moment already have?

This question has probably already been put, but Dearth is concerned.

Well, it's going to pass, but I'm going to vote against it anyway. First of all I see no need for an organisation to “police” blood. I'd instead of bringing about more bureaucratic nonsense which this resolution seems to encourage; I’d instead urge Member States to work closer with the IRCO to contribute blood supplies to Nations in dire need.

Secondly, I see no reason why Nation States with a extensive blood and organ donation scheme in place should support member states who might not have any such benefits in place on a regular basis.

I will vote against just because I think a nation should deal with his own health care.

Yes and who is to decide then that AIDS does exist but the Red Cross doesn't? As there has been no official UN warning by "our" UN, there's no reason one should assume that it exists in this realm.


On this matter I agree. This certainly is not IMHO a reason to vote no.

My nation has provided assistance to the International Red Cross. And my nation has also accepted aid from the International Red Cross following the periodic erruptions of Mount Nastic.

(...)this badly written, ill thought out proposal(...)
Comparing to other UN resolutions that have passed, it's not even *that* badly written... in my humble opinion.

"Whereas,"
"Whereas,"
"Whereas,"

Actually I personally find the form of the resolution used to be annoying. It certainly did not follow the suggestions stickied at the top of this forum.

It isn't the worst UN resolution, but I also wouldn't call it the best.

But my nation's no vote is based on the fact that the resolution sounds as if it mandates donations. Organ donations are low in my Confederation, because the government does not require them.

We are willing to support humanitarian organizations, but not at the cost of civil liberties. This resolution just sounded too harsh. But this resolution isn't the end of the world either.

[OOC: The real UN resolutions are excellent guides of well written documents. They are easy to find by looking at the UN's homepage. They also are great fodder for copying and pasting clauses. Any serious UN representative should spend at least 1 hour reading a few resolutions to get a better feel for what the real UN is like.]

10kMichael

I respecfully ask all the DAMN GHOULS voting in favour of this resolution get their stinking paws off my organs.

The Dominion of Mad NEd welcomes international observers who wish to see our system of looking after our own citizens without being leeches upon the rest of the world.

While I have my misgivings about this proposal, as delegate, I need to vote how my region wants me to vote. However, I have learned! I will use the loopholes and vagueness of the resolution to protect me and mine. Oh and as the resolution states, if you don't donate, you don't get. so if you don't want blood from other nations, don't donate.

I respecfully ask all the DAMN GHOULS voting in favour of this resolution get their stinking paws off my organs.

The Dominion of Mad NEd welcomes international observers who wish to see our system of looking after our own citizens without being leeches upon the rest of the world.

*raises a glass* Cheers to that!

While it is probably too late to have this resolution fail (damn vacations, ahh well seems like most people do not read here anyways), I wanted to respond to a few things.


Whereas national blood reserves are largely left idle most of the times as fresh blood expires in a matter of days,

Wrong wrong wrong ! I think you mean a single component ! ! !


I took it to mean he was referencing whole blood (which has multiple components). And the shelf life for whole blood is currently around 21 days. However, whole blood is seldom used these days except in cases of autologus donations (donating blood to yourself), and instead are replaced by use of the various components of which all but platlets last 42days + (platlets last but 5 days)

I am also aware that in most cases, a simple blood plasma donation is equally effective in the place of whole blood transfusion, if not more so. Plasma has none of the complications associated with "type" matching, and is rarely (if ever) immunologically rejected by the body. However, there are times when a mere plasma transfusion isn't sufficient to save a person's life, especially if the person in question has been injured sufficiently (or simply bled enough prior to adequate medical treatment) and their red blood cell count has dropped below the body's ability to adequately replace the missing cells.

I do not yet have sufficient evidence to argue against the "most cases" argument, but I was wondering what supportive information you can find for this as the indicators for use of plasma as those numbers I have seen seem to rule against this.

In cryoprecipitate ABO compatibility is prefererred but not required. (if large doses of ABO incompatible cryoprecipitate are used it can still cause issues). In ALL other cases blood products must be "typed" to HELP prevent the occurance of severe reactions. THIS INCLUDES PLASMA.

And finally what might be a trite point, when red blood cell counts have dropped the need administer red bloods cells is for their oxygen carrying capacity, not because the body is unable to replace them (though you could argue that it is because the body can not replace them fast enough to prevent hypoxia from killing the patient).

References (in no particular order)
http://www.americasblood.org/download/coiv2.pdf
http://chapters.redcross.org/midatlanticblood/Hospital%20Services/Hospital%20Services/hospital%20services%20and%20manufacturing.html#packinginfo
http://www.aabb.org/All_About_Blood/FAQs/aabb_faqs.htm#1
http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/pdf/cp85.pdf
http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/pdf/cp78.pdf
http://www.givelife2.org/aboutblood/faq.asp#5
http://www.ibts.ie/docs/120-MassiveHaemorrhageGuideline.pdf


-Qumquat ruler of The Federation of Fruits

To our fellow UN member-states:

The RCO has voted against this measure, and we ask our fellow member-states to seriously consider doing the same.

While the RCO has various reasons for this, one in particular stands out: if this measure passes, our ability to help our community will be severely curtailed. Most of the UN nations are not merely islands of their own, a solitary individual state residing in a region of one. Rather, most member states belong to regions of varying sizes. As we all recognize, not all these regional members are UN members. In our own region, soveriegn states, of their own free will, provide aid and service to one another for their mutual benefit. This resolution threatens that ability in a fundamental way.

Consider your own region, with its non-UN states. Say this resolution passes, and the blood and organs of all UN states are shipped off to central holding. Now, say one of your region-states, a non-UN member, suffers terribly from a war, severe organ shortage, whatever. What do you do? What CAN you do? After all, your supplies have been shipped off to the UN, to be redistributed at their pleasure. Perhaps your ally, your fellow region state, is not a high priority. Perhaps the organs your state provides, that could have aided the suffering of your fellow region-member, are instead going off to UN states that are directly and fundamentally opposed to yours (so, for leftist/atheist states, right-wing theocrats, or vice-versa). This resolution makes such a dreaful situation not only possible, but exceedingly likely.

While we respect the UN, our strongest allies are in our region. We ask all UN members to vote against this resolution, for the sake of their regional members.

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