NationStates Jolt Archive

We have submitted a proposal to the UN suggesting that on birth, every individual is placed on an organ donation register, from which adults have the choice to opt out, with added protection for minors, and those unable to express their wishes, such as the mentally-disabled. We think this would be a progressive move towards promoting the inalienable right of the individual to good health.

I believe we wrote one of them with _myopia_.

It is customary to post a copy here.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*


Category: Human Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Cunnyfuntbooboo


Description: It is proposed that UN Member States initiate individually national organ donation registers, on which every person is placed at birth. Individual persons are free to opt-out from the age of sixteen; the next of kin of persons who die before this watershed are responsible, and have the right, after death, to opt the deceased out. It will be the responsibility of those over sixteen to opt-out before death. However, it will be the responsibilty of the state to consult the next of kin of those under sixteen. It is deemed, with fair precedent, that sixteen is a reasonable age at which individuals can be expected to take responsibilty for their body. Controls can also be introduced to protect those unable, mentally or otherwise, to express their wish upon the subject.

Although this issue inevitably raises spiritual issues, the benefits are clear:

- The inevitable rise in organ donation will help cure countless complaints, and give the ill a chance to live, though this chance is borne out of the tragedy of a death.

- Basic individual freedoms are protected by the inclusion of a simple opt-out system.

I have recomended to my delegate to support this

I believe we wrote one of them with _myopia_.

:) Indeed. I still have the text lying here on my computer:

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.

Anyway, back to the point - the proposal under discussion.

First, I'm not sure that "human rights" is the correct category. I know that we never really came to a finalised decision on category for the text I posted above, because it's very difficult to place within the categories available. Social justice is an alternative, but I'm not sure which it should be.

Second, you need to make it clear that the method of opting out has to be simple, accessible to all, and well-publicised.

Third, you need to put in an argument against the spritual objections - point out that individuals are still free to follow their own spiritual rules, and that this merely stops the state forcing such rules upon them - so this is actually an increase in the freedom of the individual to live according to his/her own religious ideas.

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*


Category: Human Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Cunnyfuntbooboo


Description: It is proposed that UN Member States initiate individually national organ donation registers, on which every person is placed at birth. Individual persons are free to opt-out from the age of sixteen; the next of kin of persons who die before this watershed are responsible, and have the right, after death, to opt the deceased out. It will be the responsibility of those over sixteen to opt-out before death. However, it will be the responsibilty of the state to consult the next of kin of those under sixteen. It is deemed, with fair precedent, that sixteen is a reasonable age at which individuals can be expected to take responsibilty for their body. Controls can also be introduced to protect those unable, mentally or otherwise, to express their wish upon the subject.

Although this issue inevitably raises spiritual issues, the benefits are clear:

- The inevitable rise in organ donation will help cure countless complaints, and give the ill a chance to live, though this chance is borne out of the tragedy of a death.

- Basic individual freedoms are protected by the inclusion of a simple opt-out system.
Take out 16 and all the contortions to make it seem reasonable, and leave it up to the individual nations to determine a reasonable age of consent for their races.
There are countries with elves as citizens - they might set the elven age of consent at 120.




So, are the organs of minors automatically harvested? Are they prohibited from being harvested? Do their parents have a say in the matter?

The ability of the people of poorly educated nations to opt out of the proposed scheme is questionable. Some goverments could reduce the level of education to increase the numbers of their people staying in the scheme.

We could possibly support voluntary registers being set up in the nations of the UN, depending on the safe guards of minors (as defined by that state) human rights and the protection for the alternatively gifted.

Consent must be freely given only by those with the awareness of the ramifications of that consent.

...on birth, every individual is placed on an organ donation register, from which adults have the choice to opt out...

Although the ends this proposal seeks to address are commendable, the Cascadian government is somewhat uncomfortable with this proposal because it comes to close to treating the very bodies of citizens as property of the government. It does so, we think, by creating a legal presumption (against which citizens must affirmatively protest) that the organs of the body are subject to the will of the government. Philosophically, however, Cascadians very strongly believe in the idea that a person's body is, in fact, their ultimate "personal property," to do with only as they might please. They are concerned, therefore, that this proposal may be the beginning of laws that recognize public propety interests in people's private bodies.

I realise that so called "opt-in" systems don't have the best sucess rate, but I am appalled at the idea that the moment someone is born they are presumed to want to donate their organs, and that they have to actually state they want their bodies left in one piece to avoid being butchered after they die.

Regardless of my person feelings on this, I think the idea that this idea is truly hideous, and would not support it even if my life depended on it (which I know it might).

)edit(

After reading the post above, I have realised why I find it so heinous. It is the idea of a body being the property of the nation, rather than of itself.

That's not the underlying assumption. The assumption is that after people die, their bodies are not occupied by their minds anymore (whether the mind/spirit/soul is elsewhere or just doesn't exist anymore, we are not going to guess on), and therefore the individual rights that we hold dear no longer apply with the same force to the physical body.

And if anything, the presumed obligation is not to government but to fellow sapient beings.

_Myopia_ fiercely supports the rights of the individual over his/her body, and as long as it is easy and simple to opt-out, we don't see opt-out systems as conflicting with that principle.

That's not the underlying assumption. The assumption is that after people die, their bodies are not occupied by their minds anymore (whether the mind/spirit/soul is elsewhere or just doesn't exist anymore, we are not going to guess on), and therefore the individual rights that we hold dear no longer apply with the same force to the physical body.

And if anything, the presumed obligation is not to government but to fellow sapient beings.


We disagree -- in part, because many member states recognize a right to direct the usage of one's proprety held in life even after they have died (e.g., through the use of wills, creation of trusts, etc. etc.). In fact, in many states, if a citizen fails to indicate any particular intent for the distribution of property held during life, it is presumed that they would want it to go to a family member, and not to the state.

If a citizen has the ability to direct the use of tangible property after their lifetime, it stands to reason that they should also have the ability to do the same with their own body. As we have said, a person holds (and, indeed, should hold) the ultimate personal property interest in their own body, to direct with as they please (including, I submit, even after the point of death).

Hi, I'm from the region that has entered the proposal. Thank you all for your comments. As a group our region is very new to the game, and we're still finding our feet. Therefore our proposal has a few wrinkles, and the prose is certainly not as erudite as some of the other proposals we have found, not least the above similar proposal to ours. We do just want to address the idea of government 'ownership' of the body. This misunderstanding has no doubt arisen from our inexpert proposal, but the concept, as _myopia_ commendably argued, relies on the idea that a cadaver is no longer the person who occupied it. This challenges various spiritual beliefs naturally, but this is addressed by the opt-out, and the protection offered to minors etc. Also, as previously stated, the benefit is meant to be for the citizens of UN nations, and not the governments. The hope is that an equlibrium would be struck in each nation - note that the registers are national, and not UN-wide - so that a surplus/deficit situation does not occur internationally. Thanks again.

I have no problem with the idea that once a person dies, they no longer occupy their body (so to speak).

But the proposal says that the moment someone is born, they are listed for organ donation. That means while they are alive their organs are classed as the property of the government.

Which is an increadibly offensive idea. The indication, whether it is meant or not, is that the government is just waiting for the person to die so they can put the organs to some use.

)edit(

Further to this - what if some governments decide that they don't want to wait too long for the organs?

We disagree -- in part, because many member states recognize a right to direct the usage of one's proprety held in life even after they have died (e.g., through the use of wills, creation of trusts, etc. etc.). In fact, in many states, if a citizen fails to indicate any particular intent for the distribution of property held during life, it is presumed that they would want it to go to a family member, and not to the state.

If a citizen has the ability to direct the use of tangible property after their lifetime, it stands to reason that they should also have the ability to do the same with their own body. As we have said, a person holds (and, indeed, should hold) the ultimate personal property interest in their own body, to direct with as they please (including, I submit, even after the point of death).

This doesn't really have anything to do with the state - it's to do with your fellow people. The state just happens to be organising it. And the individual still retains absolute choice over the fate of his/her organs - it's just a switch to the assumption that most people probably don't mind others benefitting from their organs after they die.

But the proposal says that the moment someone is born, they are listed for organ donation. That means while they are alive their organs are classed as the property of the government.

Which is an increadibly offensive idea. The indication, whether it is meant or not, is that the government is just waiting for the person to die so they can put the organs to some use.

)edit(

Further to this - what if some governments decide that they don't want to wait too long for the organs?

Ok, so scrap the lists for donors - they don't serve any purpose anyway. Just list the people who object, and if someone isn't on that, then don't take their organs.

I maintain that you're focussing too strongly on the government. By all means, get the proposal writer to remove all references to the government and replace them with "the relevant health service provider" or something, because this is about assuming that people are essentially generous towards each other, and that if they have some strong personal feeling which prevents them giving this particular gift, that they feel it strongly enough to simply register their wishes.

As to your edit - first, UN member governments aren't actually allowed to kill anyone without a trial:

Due Process



A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Votes For: 9027

Votes Against: 4677

Implemented: Wed Aug 13 2003

"Due process of law" being defined by our 2 fair trial resolutions:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029626&postcount=22

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48

Second, if there's some way round this, then governments who want to use it will already be using it, and perhaps we can work some measure into an opt-out donation proposal which would try and prevent such things.

. . . it's just a switch to the assumption that most people probably don't mind others benefitting from their organs after they die.

Well, this assumption is certainly not accurate UN-wide (we know that it is at least inaccurate in TilEnca and Cascadia Atlanticus); I suggest it is better to let the states/regions where this is true implement such an assumption switch. Different states/regions with different philosophies, religions, and principles should have the ability to implement legal assumptions that are more closely aligned with their local realities.

Myopia has suggested that it is not the government that is claiming a property interest in a persons body. Specifically, it was said that:


I maintain that you're focussing too strongly on the government. By all means, get the proposal writer to remove all references to the government and replace them with "the relevant health service provider" or something . . .

But TilEnca's objection, to which Myopia responded,

The indication, whether it is meant or not, is that the government is just waiting for the person to die so they can put the organs to some use.

is equally applicable even if we were to focus on "society," instead of the government. Thus, we might object as follows:

The indication, whether it is meant or not, is that society is just waiting for the person to die so they can put the organs to some use.

Ok, so scrap the lists for donors - they don't serve any purpose anyway. Just list the people who object, and if someone isn't on that, then don't take their organs.


It's still the same issue - they have to take an action to protect their body.



I maintain that you're focussing too strongly on the government. By all means, get the proposal writer to remove all references to the government and replace them with "the relevant health service provider" or something, because this is about assuming that people are essentially generous towards each other, and that if they have some strong personal feeling which prevents them giving this particular gift, that they feel it strongly enough to simply register their wishes.


Still the same problem - they have to take an action to protect their body.


As to your edit - first, UN member governments aren't actually allowed to kill anyone without a trial:


That's not true. The quote says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - it doesn't say they have to be tried before they are killed. The due process could be this

1) Does he have the suitable organs? (Yes)
2) Has he filed an objection before this decision was taken? (No)
3) Take his organs.

The fair trial resolutions only apply if someone is being tried for something. This person has not committed a crime, so there is no law (as far as I am aware?) to stop a nation killing him for the process of harvesting his organs.

It's still the same issue - they have to take an action to protect their body.

With either an opt-out or an opt-in system, someone is going to have to get off their backside to have their wishes registered. To choose one based simply on the fact that the "assumed against" group is forced to take action suggests to me either that you see becoming an organ donor as a violation of your body, or that you think the wishes of non-donors are more important than the wishes of donors.

How about this as a compromise. Instead of having any assumption, everyone is asked to register their wishes one way or another at whatever age they gain the right to decide, and they can change that at any time. If you like, issue both donor AND non-donor cards. This way, we deal with the apathy problem, because everyone has to choose one way or another, but we don't have any potentially offensive assumptions.


That's not true. The quote says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - it doesn't say they have to be tried before they are killed. The due process could be this

1) Does he have the suitable organs? (Yes)
2) Has he filed an objection before this decision was taken? (No)
3) Take his organs.

The fair trial resolutions only apply if someone is being tried for something. This person has not committed a crime, so there is no law (as far as I am aware?) to stop a nation killing him for the process of harvesting his organs.

Ok you're probably correct, so let's work on writing something stopping this into any organ donation proposal.

EDIT: Oh, the irony that UN law allows us to punish citizens without fair tirals, as long as we don't suspect them of doing anything wrong :D

With either an opt-out or an opt-in system, someone is going to have to get off their backside to have their wishes registered. To choose one based simply on the fact that the "assumed against" group is forced to take action suggests to me either that you see becoming an organ donor as a violation of your body, or that you think the wishes of non-donors are more important than the wishes of donors.

How about this as a compromise. Instead of having any assumption, everyone is asked to register their wishes one way or another at whatever age they gain the right to decide, and they can change that at any time. If you like, issue both donor AND non-donor cards. This way, we deal with the apathy problem, because everyone has to choose one way or another, but we don't have any potentially offensive assumptions.


That I can live with. I just think that on the whole idea that someone has to say they don't want their body desecrated after they die is offensive :}




Ok you're probably correct, so let's work on writing something stopping this into any organ donation proposal.

EDIT: Oh, the irony that UN law allows us to punish citizens without fair tirals, as long as we don't suspect them of doing anything wrong :D

Yeah - I know I was pushing the point about Due Process, but if you take out the idea of someone being on trial, Due Process doesn't protect anyone. Also The Universal Bill Of Rights has some suspect articles in them. Both resolutions could do with re-writing :}

Description: It is proposed that UN Member States initiate individually national organ donation registers, on which every person is placed at birth.

I cannot, due to health concerns. The Sarkarasetan Vampire Virus (SVV) and its relatives are not detectable until a month after birth. These viruses are basically bigger and badder than HIV, which they smack around as though it's a new arrival in a prison. Nor are they the only viruses that pass from mother to child.

Individual persons are free to opt-out from the age of sixteen; the next of kin of persons who die before this watershed are responsible, and have the right, after death, to opt the deceased out.

Species issues with this have already been mentioned.

It will be the responsibility of those over sixteen to opt-out before death. However, it will be the responsibilty of the state to consult the next of kin of those under sixteen. It is deemed, with fair precedent, that sixteen is a reasonable age at which individuals can be expected to take responsibilty for their body.

Unless they are of longer-lived species that don't reach maturity until 20s or later (humans reach sexual maturity at 18, mental maturity at a range from 13 to 70).

Controls can also be introduced to protect those unable, mentally or otherwise, to express their wish upon the subject.

What about those who are capable of expressing their views, but are diseased? SVV is spreading fast enough without my doctors directly transfering infected flesh from one person to another.

Although this issue inevitably raises spiritual issues, the benefits are clear:

- The inevitable rise in organ donation will help cure countless complaints, and give the ill a chance to live, though this chance is borne out of the tragedy of a death.

- Basic individual freedoms are protected by the inclusion of a simple opt-out system.

Needs to consider issues of disease spread, which is a plague of real-life organ transplants.