NationStates Jolt Archive

Opt-out organ donation systems

Category: Human Rights? Social justice? Can a mod comment on what would be appropriate please?

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that since the passage of the "World Blood Bank" resolution on Wed Apr 14 2004, organ donation is now an international issue whether UN member nations like it or not,

NOTING with dismay the failure of many "opt-in" organ donation systems (where the assumption is against donation unless the deceased carries a donor card or similar) to achieve a sufficient level of organ donation,

ATTRIBUTING part of the blame for said failure to apathy, since many who would not object to their organs being transplanted after death do not bother to register themselves as potential donors,

NOTING with dismay that the low rates of donation in many nations using opt-in systems are placing undue burdens of contribution to the World Blood/Organ Bank on nations with opt-out systems and high donation rates,

CONDEMNING the infringement upon individual sovereignty that would be, and in some nations is, entailed by compulsory organ donation,

BELIEVING that if "opt-out" systems were used more widely, the individual sovereignty of those who seriously objected to the use of their organs would be protected, and that organ donation rates would rise,

1) PROHIBITS member governments from not allowing citizens a method of refusing to donate their organs;
2) STRONGLY URGES member governments to implement "opt-out" systems for organ donation in whatever way is most appropriate to their nation;
3) ENCOURAGES that decisions about donating organs are left up to the individual unless parental consent is required for a minor;
4) DISCOURAGES but does not prohibit the use of "opt-in" systems;
5) REQUESTS that the World Blood/Organ Bank gives preference to supplying nations which agree to try to maximise organ donation rates through the use of opt-out systems.

This is a proposal jointly written by _Myopia_ and The Black New World. We are now looking for feedback to improve it before submission, so if anyone has any comments/thoughts, please post.

Well I like it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Well I like it.


I wonder why.... :D

No feedback whatsoever?

I might be wrong, but do we not already have a daily issue for this? I have long felt that if a daily issue exist it should be considered a local issue and the UN should not legislate in that area. Nations can effectively over rule a NSUN decision when the daily issue comes round and since we always say the NSUN cannot be ignored does this not represent a potential conflict?

I fully accept that some daily issues have already become resolutions, but that is exactly my point. What is the point of having resolutions if nations can through daily issues ignore them.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

OOC:

In fairness, the national issue dealing with blood donations makes no reference to the opt-out scheme. This is a right bugger, because you either have to clamp down unnecessarily on personal freedoms or suffer from low donation rates.

IC:

My nation supports the general thrust behind this proposal and feels that it is a worthy attempt to address the issue. However, I hesitate to place our full support behind it as I have concerns that the issue is perhaps not of fully international standing. I remain open to persuasion.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

There is definitely an issue dealing with organ donations, I had it not too long ago. Though I don't know exactly what the answers to the issue were like...



It is nobody's right to put such a plan into action, not the local government, nor the UN. Having to fill out paperwork to STOP the government dismantling your body is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Indeed, if it comes to pass it would contradict the very foundation of the Articles of the Confederacy of Mattikistan, and as such this resolution would not apply to us anyway. We are very glad you have not taken the route of the flawed resolutions, and have acknowledged and respected the laws and thus the sovereignty of individual nations -- if you still intend to push this through to the voting stage, we strongly recommend you leave this unchanged.

Besides which, you would then have to create a highly effective advertising campaign for each nation; to inform the citizens that their bodies are now up for grabs automatically, and how they can escape this. And such a campaign would cost money, a LOT of money if you do it properly to ensure that not one citizen is unsure. Money which could be better spent on educating people about the benefits of organ donation to society and encouraging them to opt-in.

A non-moral criticism, I would say that you should probably make sure that any nation which does use opt-out MUST make sure their citizens are fully informed on exactly 'how' to opt-out. It's all well and good making sure citizens are allowed to opt-out, but it's no use if they don't know HOW.

I might be wrong, but do we not already have a daily issue for this? I have long felt that if a daily issue exist it should be considered a local issue and the UN should not legislate in that area. Nations can effectively over rule a NSUN decision when the daily issue comes round and since we always say the NSUN cannot be ignored does this not represent a potential conflict?

I fully accept that some daily issues have already become resolutions, but that is exactly my point. What is the point of having resolutions if nations can through daily issues ignore them.

As Ecopoeia said, what this resolution would do is not possible through the issues system. Additionally, since this is a game, whether people choose to break the resolution through the issues system is less important to me than the gameplay and discussion of passing a resolution.

My nation supports the general thrust behind this proposal and feels that it is a worthy attempt to address the issue. However, I hesitate to place our full support behind it as I have concerns that the issue is perhaps not of fully international standing. I remain open to persuasion.

As is pointed out in the proposal, organ donation systems in one UN member nation affect all UN member nations due to the organ bank resolution passed a while ago. So if Ecopoeia uses an opt-in system and has a lower donation rate than _Myopia_, we are currently at a massive disadvantage because there is a net flow of organs out of our nation and into yours.

Having to fill out paperwork to STOP the government dismantling your body is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

In some societies, the opposite might be said - where the vast majority want to donate (Belgium has an opt-out system, and only 3 or 4% choose to opt out), it might be said that it is ridiculous to have to fill out paperwork in order to donate.

Besides which, you would then have to create a highly effective advertising campaign for each nation; to inform the citizens that their bodies are now up for grabs automatically, and how they can escape this. And such a campaign would cost money, a LOT of money if you do it properly to ensure that not one citizen is unsure. Money which could be better spent on educating people about the benefits of organ donation to society and encouraging them to opt-in.

I think that per unit of money spent on the campaign, you'd get a better improvement in donation rates from the opt-out system - all the people who would have been persuaded by the opt-in campaign would be automatic donors, and those who wouldn't mind donating but can't be bothered to opt-in would be donors too.

As to your last comment, this is a good point. If the other co-author agrees, I'd like to change the first operative clause to this: "1) PROHIBITS member governments from not allowing citizens a reasonably simple, accessible method of refusing to donate their organs;" and to add in a second clause "2) INSISTS that member governments ensure that methods of opting out of organ donation are made familiar to their citizens, where such methods require action on the part of the citizen". This ok?

I know a couple of nations that really don't like the "like it or lump it" dogma in the UN. While I know they might represent a vast minority, they'd be more likely to vote for it if you left out the "whether you like it or not" phrase.

That part was my words, and I suppose I could have been a little less harsh and blunt. It's just that the national sovereignty people really annoy me - where's the fun in making decisions through the issue system, which gets fairly dull when you've been playing a long time and have seen all the issues, when you could have the (IMO) far more enjoyable game experience of drafting, debating and campaigning proposals in the UN forums?[/rant] Anyway, perhaps a more acceptable wording would be "RECOGNISING that since the passage of the "World Blood Bank" resolution on Wed Apr 14 2004, organ donation is now indisputably an international issue,"

1) PROHIBITS member governments from not allowing citizens a method of refusing to donate their organs;
Again, some people will insist this is overstepping, but really there are resolutions past which respect certain parts of the sovereignty of the individual over the sovereignty of the nation. So it's actually within the scope of the UN as long as it can be proven to the naysayers that it's an infringement upon individual sovereignty to FORCE organ donations.

Thankyou for agreeing :D although there will be those who won't accept individual sovereignty as a legitimate argument, even if it is proven that said sovereignty is being infringed upon. If you see what I mean.

5) REQUESTS that the World Blood/Organ Bank gives preference to supplying nations which agree to try to maximise organ donation rates through the use of opt-out systems.
I just had one question here. The way it's written now the World B/O Bank only favors increasing organ donations through opt-out programs, not the increasing of organ donations itself. Is this what's intended? I think it should stay the way it is, but my first reaction was this: "Wait, what if I increase organ donations through payment for organs? Do I get no preferential treatment?" Now that I've thought about I beleive it's good the way it's written now. The resolution only addresses the opt-out/in programs. Nowhere in the beginning statements does it mention other ways of increasing organ donations (except mandatory donations, which it prohibits), but it seems like out of the scope of this resolution to favor organ increase itself. Unless there is something added earlier addressing other ways of increasing organ donations It would be nonsequitur and overstepping a little to include that in the end.

It should be noted that since the author of the "World Blood Bank" proposal didn't establish who would be making the organisation's decisions or how, it wasn't thought appropriate by us authors that this proposal force the organisation to do anything - this is merely a request - although it is assumed it would be carried out as requested.

Endorsing other ways of raising donation rates was considered, but as you say it doesn't really belong here (someone else is welcome to propose something else to try and do it though) it's actually very difficult to word this properly. The clause would need to take into account that there are some methods which the international community would not find it appropriate to endorse, so some kind of vetting system would be needed, which begs the question who does the vetting and on whose moral standards? It would also need to take into account that nations might do their best to increase donation rates but be unable to do so, and they shouldn't necessarily therefore be punished for low donation rates - that's why the proposed version rewards nations which try to raise donation rates, rather than simply those who do raise them - but then again systems doomed to failure might be introduced simply to gain favour.

Thanks for all your helpful contributions.

Since _Myopia_'s parliament will be in recess for 3 weeks from Monday 26th, we have agreed to put the proposal submission on hold until our government returns to business. However, comments and suggestions are still welcome.

Opt-out organ donation systems

Category: Human Rights? Social justice? Can a mod comment on what would be appropriate please?

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that since the passage of the "World Blood Bank" resolution on Wed Apr 14 2004, organ donation is now an international issue whether UN member nations like it or not,



First, it sounds a bit like a social justice, because you are really just trying to increase the success rate of organ donation problems, but at the same time are not making them mandatory.

I'd recommend you reword the first preambulatory clause shown above. Spefically, I don't like the phrase "like it or not" in a UN resolution. It just sounds a bit akward.

The way I'd reword this would be:


NOTING the passage of the resolution World Blood Bank, on Apr. 14, 2004;


Just my first thought.

Good luck.

Ah well that was dealt with, the proposal is now (pending approval from The Black New World) like this:



The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that since the passage of the "World Blood Bank" resolution on Wed Apr 14 2004, organ donation is now indisputably an international issue,

NOTING with dismay the failure of many "opt-in" organ donation systems (where the assumption is against donation unless the deceased carries a donor card or similar) to achieve a sufficient level of organ donation,

ATTRIBUTING part of the blame for said failure to apathy, since many who would not object to their organs being transplanted after death do not bother to register themselves as potential donors,

NOTING with dismay that the low rates of donation in many nations using opt-in systems are placing undue burdens of contribution to the World Blood/Organ Bank on nations with opt-out systems and high donation rates,

CONDEMNING the infringement upon individual sovereignty that would be, and in some nations is, entailed by compulsory organ donation,

BELIEVING that if "opt-out" systems were used more widely, the individual sovereignty of those who seriously objected to the use of their organs would be protected, and that organ donation rates would rise,

1) PROHIBITS member governments from not allowing citizens a reasonably simple, accessible method of refusing to donate their organs;
2) INSISTS that member governments ensure that methods of opting out of organ donation are made familiar to their citizens, where such methods require action on the part of the citizen
3) STRONGLY URGES member governments to implement "opt-out" systems for organ donation in whatever way is most appropriate to their nation;
4) ENCOURAGES that decisions about donating organs are left up to the individual unless parental consent is required for a minor;
5) DISCOURAGES but does not prohibit the use of "opt-in" systems;
6) REQUESTS that the World Blood/Organ Bank gives preference to supplying nations which agree to try to maximise organ donation rates through the use of opt-out systems.

Thanks for making the change ... it all looks like something I'd support.

Great...submission will however be put on hold until mid August

Organ donation is not really an issue for the UN (in this case). I think countries should only use an opt-out system where donation is assumed if there is a shortage of organs for transplant. If there are enough organ donors, people shpuldn't be forced.

Quincy Rent,
Murl Junior Minister for Health

So you agree but you don’t think the UN should play with this?

A UN issue is an issue that the members decide to do something about.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Exactly. Plus Murl, if you read the proposed text, it does not force your country to implement such a system - it's just a strong recommendation backed up by an incentive. Your country would be welcome to ignore the whole thing, should it pass, save the section banning compulsory donation systems.

Well I like it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

:eek: Well, you HAVE been busy :D

Ok, I'm back from my holiday, so we can get this moving again. We still need to determine what category would be most appropriate for this proposal, though.