NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello to all UN delegates.
I hope the health systems in your countries are operating well. Unfortunately, if they're anything like Operetta's and many other countries', they won't be working as well as they could.
Specifically, I wish to address the problem of blood and organ supplies. In many UN member countries they are running dangerously low, endangering the lives of millions of hospital patients.
In my proposal, "Compulsory Blood Donations", I outline a new system, under which we would all be able to have ample supplies of blood and organs, thus enabling the people of our countries to live long, full and healthy lives.
Read my proposal for further details and if you agree with it, please approve it. We can make this dream become a reality.

Queen Emily of the Republic of Operetta (man, that joke's wearing thin... ;))

You will find that copying the said proposal in full to the thread will allow for better debate and feedback. As well as recognition.

I wholeheartedly agree. Health can cometimes be the only thing a person has in their possession, without health everything else is meaningless, even democracy, socialism, anything.

We should be willing to save many lives by not allowing people to refuse to donate their organs for superficial and onbiously incompetent reasons. There is no reason not to save a life by giving up your organs after you die.

However, I believe that should be specified in the draft. I believe that only organ donating after death should be cumpulsory, not organ-donating while alive.

Civilian lives come before personal desires and ethics after death.

What about religious reasons?

But anyone can make up their own religion and claim that they dont want to donate for "religious reasons". Religion isnt invincible, it has to be beaten sometimes by more important issues. I don't know about you, but innocent lives is more important than religious ideas to me.

Sorry, redundant idea I'm afraid ...

World Blood Bank

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Malagassia

Description: Whereas it has been observed that some nations are experiencing repeated or seasonal shortages of blood, Whereas it has been observed that most nations are experiencing acute shortages in donor organs, Whereas it has been observed that organs compatible to the victim of the body are often hard to find, Whereas it has been observed that only 1 in 200,000 people have compatible marrow types, Whereas it has been observed that marrow donors are rare, Whereas it has been observed that every nation is susceptible to acute blood and organ shortages in the case of calamities, Whereas national blood reserves are largely left idle most of the times as fresh blood expires in a matter of days, Whereas regional or worldwide redistribution would provide an assurance against acute shortage and could level national shortages/surplusses, A World Blood Bank is proposed in which all nation's donations would be included and redistributed on a regional scale meeting local needs. 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. These efforts are deemed compatible with the role of the Red Cross/Red Crescent and could/should be done in concordance with that organisation. 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.

Done and done, ignoring also at least two N.S. issues which deal with it too ...

I believe donating blood and organs is not a national or international issue, but a personal issue at the heart of every individual. No nation or international body has the right to tell a citizen of a given country that they must donate blood and organs, that's ludicruously a violation of human rights.

As I look at the resolution I can only think of how nice it is. But it's wrong! Very wrong!

Now don't get me wrong. I'm as much for blood donations as much as the next person. I just gave blood myself ... on my very own birthday no less. And yet even though locally there is only 3% of the people who give blood, giving blood has to be a regional thing.

Why? Because like the water, different regions have different diseases in their blood. When you donate blood in my area, there is a lot of questions that ask if you have been to X, or Y or even Z. Sometimes it's ok for a short stay but sometimes even going there for a few days will take you off of the list. And these aren't improvished third world countries. Three months in the UK means you can't donate blood in the US.

An international blood bank would cause harm on a massive scale. Everyone in Wawaland might be naturally immune to Wawa's disease, but people in Wayway might not.

Moreover, I feel this international blood bank might be abused by certain evil organizations to their own nefarious ends. (You just can't trust those vampires ... er I mean laywers.)

Now why don't I like this idea?......Im thinking its the trampling of an individuals rights and the smell of creeping socialism.
Roderick UPS
Ambassador of New Virgina :mp5:

If the representative from New Virginia plans on doing nothing but singing the same, sad imperialism song, I would ask that he say nothing at all. We are a body devoted to eaningful discourse, where people use things like logic and factsto make their points, as opposed to something you've discovered called "empty rhetoric." The UN doesn't need more people like you.

As for the rest of those participating in this discussion, I believe a large amount of evidence exists that places this proposal squarely outside the realm of United Nations jurisdiction. As the representative from Tuesday Heights mentioned, this is not an international issue, or even a national issue. Whether or not you feel comfortable donating your organs is a personal choice, made for reasons that only the individual can appreciate.

I have to disagree with you. As human beings and by basic human rights you should have the choice to do with your bodies, negative or positive. But there should be a system behind it. If you do not want to have to give your organs for donation. I believe that those persons should write it in scipt in there wills, if they do or do not want to give there organs for donations. This will honor their wishes, and solve that problem. If they do not specify then you can use them for donations as well. just my point of veiw on the opinion

Which is more important--the freedom to not donate organs or many civilian lives?

Facial tick starts up ...

In case any-body missed the folowing logic, or suddenly found their train of thought to have a caboose on it ...

Sorry, redundant idea I'm afraid ...

There Is Already A Passed U.N. Resolution For This Idea Sucks As It May

World Blood Bank

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Malagassia

Description: Whereas it has been observed that some nations are experiencing repeated or seasonal shortages of blood, Whereas it has been observed that most nations are experiencing acute shortages in donor organs, Whereas it has been observed that organs compatible to the victim of the body are often hard to find, Whereas it has been observed that only 1 in 200,000 people have compatible marrow types, Whereas it has been observed that marrow donors are rare, Whereas it has been observed that every nation is susceptible to acute blood and organ shortages in the case of calamities, Whereas national blood reserves are largely left idle most of the times as fresh blood expires in a matter of days, Whereas regional or worldwide redistribution would provide an assurance against acute shortage and could level national shortages/surplusses, A World Blood Bank is proposed in which all nation's donations would be included and redistributed on a regional scale meeting local needs. 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. These efforts are deemed compatible with the role of the Red Cross/Red Crescent and could/should be done in concordance with that organisation. 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.

Now maybe I'm just wasting my time by retaining the hope people will actually read this time and realise the debate is a moot point because there is already passed U.N. law for this idea, waste of time which it was originally any-way, go figure ...

CONSIDERING THERE ARE NATIONAL ISSUES FOR IT ANY-WAY, ARGH !

In the Confederacy of Stites, we hold civil rights dear. We have social services, for those who choose to partake in their benefits. Although we understand the need to save others, we would be saving others for nothing if we sacrificed our ideals and principles by mandating moral, just choices.

We believe this is already an issue to be addressed.

However, we believe that this is a clear violation of people's freedoms. Not everyone wants to donate organs. The less compassionate among us will refuse to do this. Forcing them to give up their organs (which is crucial for their health) is undemocratic.

As you know, the UN is a democratic council and passing this proposal is clearly going against it.

We hope others can see our views.

Holy Republic of Seriphyn
Ambassador to the UN

Organ donation should only be required after they die. If they wish to donate organs while alive, they can, but that is voluntary.

Which is more important, freedom or life?

plug, plug

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339527

Which is more important--the freedom to not donate organs or many civilian lives?

The freedom to not donate organs.

Maybe if such a resolution was turned from compulsory organ and blood donation (two very different things) to the standard expectation of a citizen to donate blood or oragns. Then citizens truly against the practice may apply for exempt status while apathy is effectively denied.

I wonder exactly how many people actually read about there already being a proposal for this issue ...

And, in the spirit of education and better-ing the U.N. by maximising space,

PLUG, PLUG !

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=339527