NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings members of the UN. I have submitted a proposal which most of you here in the forums shall be familliar with.
It has been worked on at lenght with the aid of the Members within this forum and i am hoping it will pass this time. I Beseech all Delegates to find this proposal and give it aprooval and support.

Thank You,
President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.

for your perusal.........

Given that thousands of sick people die everyday needlessly while waiting for a suitable Donor Organ to become available,

Given that many Nations harvest their peoples organs after death and are left with an oversupply,

Recognising and enhancing the recommendations pertaining to organ donors governed by resolution #55, World Blood Bank,

Recognising and affirming article 4 of Resolution #26, the Universal Bill of Rights, and accepting that the membership of the UNWODC, by any Nation or individual is voluntary,

Extending the role of the International Red Cross / Crescent Organisation (IRCO) as per resolution #29,

Recognising the articles of resolution #49, Rights and duties of UN States,

Calling on the Nations of the UN to increase funding for both governmental and non governmental organisations charged with the implementation and administration of the UNWODC,

Aware that this will not save all the sick and dying people but it will give those who are still young, with everything to live for, a bloody good chance.

On Delegate Approval the UN will set up a World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC) to centralise and process all the worlds organ needs. This will ensure that if the precious organs needed by sick and dying persons in a Nation where there are a lack of Donor Organs, can be sourced in another Nation. Once ratified by the Delegates and members of the UN a select implementation committee shall be set up and charged with consultation, tendering and resourcing of all materials, experts and tradesmen and implementing the UNWODC.

The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis so that on death donors organs can be harvested on finding the card and sent directly, after testing for type and condition, to the suitable patient in need of an organ transplant. In clarification, the UNWODC does not store the organs but directs the source where to ship the available organs and by what method, whilst simultaneously notifying the recipient patient and medical facility to be ready to begin the transplant as soon as the organs are delivered.

Funding for the UNWODC shall be sourced from the coffers of the International Community, By way of increased governmental funding and fund raisers held locally by the IRCO and other relief and charitable organisations.

The IRCO shall administrate the UNWODC, once implemented and make available their vast transport infrastructure. I call on all governments to give access to their territorial lands to the couriers of the UNWODC and assistance if required in delivery to the waiting patients. This will ensure the speedy delivery of the Organs to where they are required, with out delay.

Only healthy organs are to be used, and only for saving lives by way of organ transplant. In no way are the organs be used by peoples influenced by cannibalism, vampirism or any other nefarious use.

The following weightings shall be followed rigidly when deciding which patients are prioritised
1, Closest tissue and blood type match and suitability for transplant,
2, Life expectancy of the patient, those in mortal danger prioritised,
3, Distance and infrastructure resulting in the delivery of transplantable organs,
4, All patients shall be treated equally and no patients shall get priority based on wealth or status.

Don’t let these People down. Don’t condemn them to die from inaction.
Approve and enact the UNWODC.

President Murphy.

Are you going to post the current version of it, VL?

Edit: Nevermind. He did so while I was posting this.

that is the current version!

that is the current version!

Approved...just like the last two times. :D

Approved as usual.

Need help with a TG campaign?

Approved

Thank you all for your support.
I am currently telegramming Delegates and have so far nearly telegrammed 250. I am hoping that the proposal shall get the required amount of approvals and if you can i would appreciate if you could also telegram so that as many delegates as posible are knowledgeable of the Proposal.
Thank you all again,
President Murphy. :)

I think this is a very noble cause. However the logistics of moving about body organs and tissues from country to country are not very feasible.

Body tissue can only be viable for a relatively short amount of time after it is removed. In order to transport this tissue in time, a lot of money would need to be spent on transportation.

This money could be better spend on Healthcare and Health Eductaion to reduce the need for preventitive organ transplants. If we educated our people to live healthier lives, i.e. quit smoking and reduce daily fat/salt intake, this would lower the demand for lung/heart transplants, etc. Therefore the supply would be better equipped to supply the demand for people with less preventitive needs for organ transplant, i.e. genetic conditions.

In conculsion, though in principle I support the idea. However the cost of carrying it out for the necessary speed need isn't worth it. Investing money on prevention is better than on cures.

I would like there to be some provision to help nations like mine, which have significantly higher than average organ donation rates. In its current state, this resolution will probably result in a net loss of organs from _Myopia_, as on average citizens of other nations are less likely to donate their organs. I would like to see measures included to decrease the disadvantage to nations like _Myopia_, probably by increasing organ donation rates in other nations.

I am happy to report that after little over a day and a half the UNWODC has achieved 91 approvals and i am quietly confidant that it will reach the magical 147 to be put before all member nations.

It still requires 56 approvals. The fat lady has not sang as yet. But i hear her warming up! :)

I would like there to be some provision to help nations like mine, which have significantly higher than average organ donation rates. In its current state, this resolution will probably result in a net loss of organs from _Myopia_, as on average citizens of other nations are less likely to donate their organs. I would like to see measures included to decrease the disadvantage to nations like _Myopia_, probably by increasing organ donation rates in other nations.

Yes Myopia it is true those nations with higher donor averages will se more organs out than coming in, how ever the nature of health departments is likened to swings and roundabouts. While it is high now how will it be in 20 yrs when you have an older base population? nations with a larger Aged population are by their nature heavy on Transplants.


This money could be better spend on Healthcare and Health Eductaion to reduce the need for preventitive organ transplants. If we educated our people to live healthier lives, i.e. quit smoking and reduce daily fat/salt intake, this would lower the demand for lung/heart transplants, etc. Therefore the supply would be better equipped to supply the demand for people with less preventitive needs for organ transplant, i.e. genetic conditions.

Yes also true froilan, but are we to forget the many young people with genetic disorders and organ failure as a result of disease. Should we say to those people I am sorry you shouldnt have been born defected and or i am sorry you have renal failure due to your recent leukaemia and you should have taken more steps to avoid it! How many innocent children have you seen my friend, with their hair complely gone from the Kimo therapy. Remember the cure for leukaemia is a bone marrow transplant. Can you look into that childs eyes and explain why it is better to spend the Money on education, and preventative measures instead of trying to find a suitable match and expending resources to see it is given within as short a time possible.

President Murphy.

Can someone please inform me how to attribute quotes??? :p

Can someone please inform me how to attribute quotes??? :p

If you write

[ QUOTE=me] this is a quote from me [ /QUOTE] with out the leading spaces (ie [Q and [/Q at the start) it should appear

This is a quote from me

When you quote someone (using the quote button) it automatically puts the name in for you (as above)

I like the way you tied in with #s 55, 26(a4) & 29 I agree with all of them.

Your tie with #49 section 1 confuse me a bit though. What is your interpretation on how this will lend strength to your proposal?

#49 section 1

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

#26 article 4Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

#29 Description: This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule. It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need. They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens. May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.

#49 section 1Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

#55
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.

Yes Myopia it is true those nations with higher donor averages will se more organs out than coming in, how ever the nature of health departments is likened to swings and roundabouts. While it is high now how will it be in 20 yrs when you have an older base population? nations with a larger Aged population are by their nature heavy on Transplants.

_Myopia_ is quite an undeveloped nation, and we are not undergoing the same extent of demographic aging common in more developed nations. I expect that we will be at a disadvantage under your system for quite some time. We expect that this will be fairly common.

Our relative poverty means that our health system is struggling. One of its sole advantages is the high rate of organ donorship among our people - to implement your proposal as it is now would be a blow to an already-ailing health service.

All we ask is that if we are asked to share our citizen's generosity with their organs with the rest of the world (which we are quite happy to do), that other countries be encouraged to increase their generosity somewhat, so that the damage caused to us is less severe.

Your tie with #49 section 1 confuse me a bit though. What is your interpretation on how this will lend strength to your proposal?

This was added to affirm to nations that the proposed UNWODC was completely voluntary. It underpins that a nation cant be forced to participate against its will.

Thanks to TilEnca if this works!! :)

_Myopia_ is quite an undeveloped nation, and we are not undergoing the same extent of demographic aging common in more developed nations. I expect that we will be at a disadvantage under your system for quite some time. We expect that this will be fairly common.

Again if you find your nation unable to participate for a few years so be it. the proposal is voluntary both by nations and individuals.

I just checked, and you need only 44 more approvals to bring it up for a vote.

This was added to affirm to nations that the proposed UNWODC was completely voluntary. It underpins that a nation cant be forced to participate against its will.

Thanks to TilEnca if this works!! :)

Why am I getting the thanks?

Why am I getting the thanks?

Because i can now attribute your quote to you. I would have never figured that out. So Thanks.

I have approved this proposal. I see it as a way forward. If my people don't wan to give up their body parts for the good of humanity I will soon make them see the error of their ways :mp5:

Because i can now attribute your quote to you. I would have never figured that out. So Thanks.

Derp!! I thought you were giving me props for the actual proposal, which would have scared the crap out of me.

Just 40 more approvals required and 24 hrs remain. This is nail biting and i was thinking 500 telegrams rater than a thousand. Kinda glad i went for the latter.....



Some humourous replys i got to my telegrams....

I didn't much care one way or another on UNWODC... but then I read, "cannibalism, vampirism or any other nefarious use". I had to vote for it.

After giving it a good long second or two of thought I have come the conclusion that I shall not vote for your proposal and I shall not be swayed from, unless you are willing to donate large amounts of money to the "Save the Leader of ******* for he needs more money" foundation, supply me with at least 5 death camps so that I may fuel this organ harvesting plant, give me complete power over your nation and/or send me the organs of at least 666 virgins whose blood has never been spilled prior.

I have issues with your proposal in the location of your proposed organ harvesting factory. If I were to be able to have the primary organ harvesting factory in my territories then perhaps your issue maybe better recieved. Lord ******* ^^^^^^^^, Avid harvester of childrens organs, worshipper of Lord Satan and Head of the **** the ******* giant **** council.

Needless to say i didnt acknowledge his telegram. :)

The Holy Empire of Mad McGobbo happily approves your proposal.
(As a first timer on this is there anything else we have to do?)

Hi mC Gobbo.
If you are a delegate for a region you have to go to the Nation states UN New proposals area and find the proposal, then Approve it.

As it stands it requires just 28 more Aprovals to be put forward to be voted on so i am asking any delegates reading this to go to the New Proposals area now and approove it.

Oh my! its ll too much!! :) :D

awww crap! All i need are 22 more approvals and i got it but the time may not be on my side!!

Please If you are reading this and are a delegate, seek out my UNWODC proposal and approve it

PLEASE!

Just a couple medical-related notes to make ...

Aware that this will not save all the sick and dying people but it will give those who are still young, with everything to live for, a bloody good chance.
Depending on what organ is being transplanted, preference should not *necessarily* be given to the young. The size of the donated organ matters. A heart from a very athletic person will be larger than that of the average person, and might not fit into the chest cavity of a younger child, for example. Anyhow, I know it's past the time for debate and suggested amendments (and I really wish I would have seen the previous thread so I could have commented on it ... ), but should you need to resubmit (which may or may not be an issue - I know you're close now), I'd suggest shortening that statement a bit.

On Delegate Approval the UN will set up a World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC) to centralise and process all the worlds organ needs. This will ensure that if the precious organs needed by sick and dying persons in a Nation where there are a lack of Donor Organs, can be sourced in another Nation.
I presume that all those who make it onto the donor lists will be located at said "centre." However, as I think was previously mentioned - what about travel time to transport organs to this location? Human hearts, for example, are only still functional within about 4 hours of being removed from the donor body. And, of course, not all UN nations are located on this planet, nor would transport be available to get said heart from one side of the world to the other. So, in that respect, I'm not sure how feasible the UNWODC really is ....

The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis so that on death donors organs can be harvested on finding the card and sent directly, after testing for type and condition, to the suitable patient in need of an organ transplant. In clarification, the UNWODC does not store the organs but directs the source where to ship the available organs and by what method, whilst simultaneously notifying the recipient patient and medical facility to be ready to begin the transplant as soon as the organs are delivered.
So the patients in need of a transplant will *not* be at the UNWODC? The transplants will *not* be carried out there? That wasn't the impression I got earlier. :confused:

The following weightings shall be followed rigidly when deciding which patients are prioritised
1, Closest tissue and blood type match and suitability for transplant,
OOC - Within the US, certain transplants (i.e. human heart) are often *not* tissue typed due to time constraints, so that the organ can be transplanted within the maximum amount of time.

Other things that I think could maybe use mentioning in that section (again, should a resubmission be needed ...
-What about alcoholics who ruin their liver, or smokers who need a new lung? Lifestyle choices should have some influence on who gets organs and who doesn't, IMHO.
-What if the need for a transplant isn't their only problem? Will we give someone a new kidney, only to have the new organ ravaged by the cancer (for example) that has spread throughout their body?

Other things worth considering for possible addendum resolution later (which I believe is legal, since it would only be an extension of this proposal, should it pass?)
--What about bone marrow and kidney transplants? Both can be donated by live donors, without seriously harming them. Kidney transplants do, of course, put the person at increased risk of needing a kidney transplant themselves, should they somehow damage their remaining kidney, but bone marrow transplants are perhaps something that should be emphasized more within this proposal. You could help treat cancer in a lot of patients with a larger bone marrow registry.
--What about blood donation? Again, that's something that is very easily obtained from a live donor (and much more safely than bone marrow or kidney transplantation), and perhaps would be something worth mentioning.

Anyhow, I love the theory behind this resolution - organ, tissue, and blood donation are things that I strongly believe and which are compulsory within Mousebumples. I just think that the method could be a bit clearer, with perhaps a few other specifications as well.

For those reasons, I haven't approved the proposal at the moment. I know it's like I'm punishing *you* because I didn't see the thread on this board previously (again, I apologize), but I'd prefer to wait a week or so and get a *really* good resolution out of it, rather than get a decent resolution which may be followed later by an extension of it's powers or something. Still - good luck, and if it makes it to quorum, I may find myself voting in favor of it all the same ...

Hi mC Gobbo.
If you are a delegate for a region you have to go to the Nation states UN New proposals area and find the proposal, then Approve it.

As it stands it requires just 28 more Aprovals to be put forward to be voted on so i am asking any delegates reading this to go to the New Proposals area now and approove it.

Oh my! its ll too much!! :) :D
Ah, problem im still trying to convince my Region neighbours to nominate me(and join the UN), I f I can get nominated before everything is over I'll approve it for you.

:D oh my this is close! just 5 more required!!!
lol
will i have time???? :confused:

now you need 4 more.

Just 2 needed!! I am having a heart attack!!
lol

1 lol just 1 more!............... :D

and its gone.

:D :) YAY!!! Its done it Thank you to the UNWODC 148!

Al-Zar, Presqu-Isle, Hoo-Doo, GreenDaystan, Krioval, Smurfenstein, Barriford, Republic of Freedonia, Flibbleites, Iabastan, Gryphonisia, Alpaca Yuan, Mythila, Hado-Kusanagi, Bushlia, Wilhelmgrad, Saysomething, Taedentia, Andromecca, Temple Alpha, Great Mertonia, Teh Salt, Crosslande, Yelda, The Sneezed, Lindsay Vonnegut, Cosmic Brownies, Novus Terra Reborn, Adlerstadt, New Happyworld Land, Tinis, Asshelmetta, The Hunter Isles, Irlynn, Jerk-menistan, Luna Amore, Archswitz, Shamb, Malaric, BLACKGRUE, Mcduckland, Jeianga, Nemphesis, Kevin Islands, Optunia, Gaiah, Neo Zeta, Zebedeus, Dangertk, Alterina, Jothopolis, Isowindia, Bieli, Chief Yellowtooth, Manfredonia, WZ Forums, Melloway, Das freie Land, Tumaini, Artamazia, Bellulus, Northern Caesarea, Gaar, Lord Rice, Vanazu, Robaria, Fiery Islands, JFriends, Conservative Haters, Krinnia, Laueria, The Jingos, Culex, Designae, Optima Justitia, Alomogordo, Palteau, Nargopia, Crydonia, -Captain Murphy-, Shere Khanage, 1 Infinite Loop, Psychorats, Veksar, Macchiavellian Masons, The Great Bud, Republica de Armada, Engineering chaos, The Rebel Pirates, Loprestia, Biunallum, Patapouff, Zhukhistan, Sud Italia, Prosinistre, Rekistan, Outremont, Umphart, Elomeras, Robin Lori and DJ, TheSensitiveNewAge, Callisdrun, Wicked Ghosts, The Eastern Wastelands, The Black Wurm, United Necromancers, Benignant Neglect, Joekerland, Oiccacram, Finbergia, Khanata, BratislavaSlovakia, Milandaros, Bonnie Doon, Feight, Catt-man-do, Missouri YIG, Mycos, Mykids, Paraiba, Klashonite, Euphorita, Catanacia, Gold Hill, Park Slope-estan, Gamepsilon, Windleheim, Constitutionals, Jlegrys, Chronosburg, Incompetent Lunacy, Cihlar, Clarity Of Thought, Schwartzhood, Arendstan, Double Bassi, Monadnock, Stretford Ghetto, Aylandlandfive, Rajnicek, Dizziness, Phernblattistan, Beld, Slap Yo Mama, The Potatohead Tribe, Gibraltia, Darkwater9, Kuhneland)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


Thank you to all the members who contributed ideas and gave me pointers.
A special thanks to Asshelmetta, Krioval, and Nargopia!

Depending on what organ is being transplanted, preference should not *necessarily* be given to the young. The size of the donated organ matters. A heart from a very athletic person will be larger than that of the average person, and might not fit into the chest cavity of a younger child, for example. Anyhow, I know it's past the time for debate and suggested amendments (and I really wish I would have seen the previous thread so I could have commented on it ... ), but should you need to resubmit (which may or may not be an issue - I know you're close now), I'd suggest shortening that statement a bit.


OK i can see where this may confuse some people. This is a matter for the Implementation body when they are setting up the UNWODC. It is obvious that the organ of a grown man or woman wont fit a young child. This will be taken into account by the professional consultants appointed by the implementation committee. Also youth does not get higher priority over aged! that was a statement of my own enthusiasm for the project.

I presume that all those who make it onto the donor lists will be located at said "centre." However, as I think was previously mentioned - what about travel time to transport organs to this location? Human hearts, for example, are only still functional within about 4 hours of being removed from the donor body. And, of course, not all UN nations are located on this planet, nor would transport be available to get said heart from one side of the world to the other. So, in that respect, I'm not sure how feasible the UNWODC really is ....

NO, no, no. It is clearly stated, even clarified that the UNWODC is purely administrative. The Patients who have been assessed by Dr.s in the hospitals local to their homes, Stay at home or if too unwell, the hospital they have been assessed in. When a suitable donor organ matches the assessed blood and tissue type a notice is sent to the Centre. The centre then runs the Information through the computer and a recipient is found quickly. The Centre then contacts the donor hospital, The recipient patient urging him/her to get to the medical facility where the transplant will be done, and the Facility where the Transplant shall take place, so they can ensure they have he facilities and staff required ready and the patient Prepped, as soon as the Organ arrives.


This is the entire thread from my original posting ......Appealing for support for the World Organ Donor Centre (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8054635#post8054635)


As for your ideas i too am sorry you where not available or did not see the thread, but we cant wait forever

I hope this clarifies your questions about the UNWODC

What about bone marrow and kidney transplants? Both can be donated by live donors, without seriously harming them.


The UNWODC has no authority over live specimen organ donors. The only organs covered by the UNWODC are those that have been made available due to the sad demise of its previous owner. Where Kidney and Bone marrow transplants are required it is most often the case that the donor is a member of their family. thus theres no requirement for the UNWODC to get involved.

The UNWODC has no authority over live specimen organ donors. The only organs covered by the UNWODC are those that have been made available due to the sad demise of its previous owner. Where Kidney and Bone marrow transplants are required it is most often the case that the donor is a member of their family. thus theres no requirement for the UNWODC to get involved.
Often that is the case, yes, but there are people with cancer, or with kidney failure who have either no family or no family that is eligible to donate (or, worse yet, no family that is a proper match). But I'm glad that you clarified that point. Perhaps I'll write up another proposal once I get my Universal Library proposal passed to act as an addendum to your own, in a way. (not necessarily involving the UNWODC, but still on the topic of organ, blood, and tissue donation from live donors)

Congrats on achieving queue! :)

We should grow clones, and if you get hurt, they just replace the injured item with the cloned item. I don't mean grow a person and cut them up. I mean grow cloned parts. For instance, if I lost a leg in a car crash, they would go to their cloning center and grow a copy of my old leg and then attach it. Kind of like a repair shop, where you just go and get the parts you want when you need them. All the common parts and parts that take a long period of time to grow are grown and put into cold storage and then if needed, taken out and re-animated to be installed on the injured person. This would eliminate people being handicapped from accidents and would also serve as a way for people who cannot have kids to either replace the defective item and have a kid, or to go in with their mate and have their genes mixed and grow a kid. Oh yes, the clone army will come soon after and galactic conquest will be mine..


wait.. scratch that last sentence >.>

I'm honored to be given any credit for this - all I did was say "submit it over again"! I see no reason why this shouldn't pass easily. It's a good idea with few, if any, drawbacks. Congratulations on getting the proposal to the floor.

I'm honored to be given any credit for this - all I did was say "submit it over again"! I see no reason why this shouldn't pass easily. It's a good idea with few, if any, drawbacks. Congratulations on getting the proposal to the floor.

It was with your advice and suggestion that i took heart, stuck to my guns and ended here. You all have been so helpful and i am thankful for that.

As it happened and it doesnt look as close now, what with 155+ approvals, i had forgotten how long i might have left and lost count after 600 tgs to delegates.

So then, its on its way to the Floor for ratification. Now all i have to do is convince the whole of the UN that its a good idea. Suddenly 6 % of delegates seems small.

President Murphy.

Congratulations!

Congratulations.

The Voting has commenced for the UNWODC.

it went to the Floor quicker than i had anticipated. Lets hope it passes.

here it is for you all to see and if you wish, comment on.


UNWODC
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description:
Given that thousands of sick people die everyday needlessly while waiting for a suitable Donor Organ to become available,

Given that many Nations harvest their peoples organs after death and are left with an oversupply,

Recognising and enhancing the recommendations pertaining to organ donors governed by resolution #55, World Blood Bank,

Recognising and affirming article 4 of Resolution #26, the Universal Bill of Rights, and accepting that the membership of the UNWODC, by any Nation or individual is voluntary,

Extending the role of the International Red Cross / Crescent Organisation (IRCO) as per resolution #29,

Recognising the articles of resolution #49, Rights and duties of UN States,

Calling on the Nations of the UN to increase funding for both governmental and non governmental organisations charged with the implementation and administration of the UNWODC,

Aware that this will not save all the sick and dying people but it will give those who are still young, with everything to live for, a bloody good chance.

On Delegate Approval the UN will set up a World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC) to centralise and process all the worlds organ needs. This will ensure that if the precious organs needed by sick and dying persons in a Nation where there are a lack of Donor Organs, can be sourced in another Nation. Once ratified by the Delegates and members of the UN a select implementation committee shall be set up and charged with consultation, tendering and resourcing of all materials, experts and tradesmen and implementing the UNWODC.

The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis so that on death donors organs can be harvested on finding the card and sent directly, after testing for type and condition, to the suitable patient in need of an organ transplant. In clarification, the UNWODC does not store the organs but directs the source where to ship the available organs and by what method, whilst simultaneously notifying the recipient patient and medical facility to be ready to begin the transplant as soon as the organs are delivered.

Funding for the UNWODC shall be sourced from the coffers of the International Community, By way of increased governmental funding and fund raisers held locally by the IRCO and other relief and charitable organisations.

The IRCO shall administrate the UNWODC, once implemented and make available their vast transport infrastructure. I call on all governments to give access to their territorial lands to the couriers of the UNWODC and assistance if required in delivery to the waiting patients. This will ensure the speedy delivery of the Organs to where they are required, with out delay.

Only healthy organs are to be used, and only for saving lives by way of organ transplant. In no way are the organs be used by peoples influenced by cannibalism, vampirism or any other nefarious use.

The following weightings shall be followed rigidly when deciding which patients are prioritised
1, Closest tissue and blood type match and suitability for transplant,
2, Life expectancy of the patient, those in mortal danger prioritised,
3, Distance and infrastructure resulting in the delivery of transplantable organs,
4, All patients shall be treated equally and no patients shall get priority based on wealth or status.

Don’t let these People down. Don’t condemn them to die from inaction.
Approve and enact the UNWODC.

Votes For: 200

Votes Against: 30

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Mon Mar 7 2005

I, and by extention the nation of kargan, oppose this, as it restricts the right of those who devour the organs , even going so far as to declare it nefarious! I need those young, vibrant hearts to get me out of bed in the morning!

Hey this idea for a international doner organization is horrible. Organ donation is a domestic issue to be decided by a country not by the world. Organ donation is a problem but in every country, all this idea is doing is causing everyone to take on everyone elses burden. So I urge you to vote NO on this resolution.

I, and by extention the nation of kargan, oppose this, as it restricts the right of those who devour the organs , even going so far as to declare it nefarious! I need those young, vibrant hearts to get me out of bed in the morning!

Tis about saving lives, not feeding vampires or canabalistic nut jobs!


Hey this idea for a international doner organization is horrible. Organ donation is a domestic issue to be decided by a country not by the world. Organ donation is a problem but in every country, all this idea is doing is causing everyone to take on everyone elses burden. So I urge you to vote NO on this resolution.

Ok, so you dissagree with the Proposal. You have the option not to participate. However, the idea behind it is to prevent wasted organs where possible. An oversupply of organs in one nation can be easily sent to a nation with a lack of donors.

The Luciferian Commune of Demographika has voted Yes to this resolution, as we agree with the principle of the legislation, despite some of it sounding like a propaganda piece. :D

I can't see how this is going to work. Are nations not signed up to the proposal going to be eligible for organ transplants? If not, what about nations nominally signed up but with very few UNWODC donor card carriers in the country?

If this is the case then countries which ARE signed up to the proposal who don't have compulsory organ donation are going to find that their transplant organs, having to be shared with less generous countries, are no longer sufficient for their needs.

In the case of countries with compulsory organ donation, how does the voluntary donor card compete with the intention of the state that all organs belong to the state post mortem?
Regarding nations practicing compulsory organ donation that sign up to the scheme as an entire country, what is the incentive for them to do so? The purpose of compulsory organ donation is that every citizen can receive a transplant organ if he needs it. Under the proposal all harvested organs would be divided equally among the nations of the world. If a compulsory-donation country wanted to ensure organs for all its citizens then it would have to in effect supply enough organs to meet the entire world's demands first.

I am also confused by the reference to an 'oversupply' - this perhaps supposes that if a country signed up to the UNWODC then they would be entitled to ensure organs for their own people first and any excess fed into the UNWODC system. What in that case is the incentive for a country to harvest an excess of transplant organs? What is going to be the financial remuneration for a country to authorise thousands of extra operations a year at huge expense?

I'm not opposing the principle, but I was wondering how these problems might be addressed if at all?

This was added to affirm to nations that the proposed UNWODC was completely voluntary. It underpins that a nation cant be forced to participate against its will.

Good, because as has been said and not answered yet, there are large problems in transporting organs over long distances in time. Unless you can convince me that it's actually possible to distribute organs on an international scale (other than neighbouring countries), we will vote against. Not that it matters, because it's a feel-good resolution so it will pass anyway, in which case we won't join.

Apart from the technical issue, there is also the national feeling: not a lot of citizens will accept donor organs being flown off to Farawayistan while people need them here in Groot Gouda.

This topic has been ...

[ Stamped with the Modly Rubber Stamp of Officialdom ]

On this date, in this place, by this person.

The Government of Fefenia is concerned that this resolution does not contain any specific statements against the selling of organs for transplantation.

Also, it would seem to me that while a central organization assisting organ donation might be desirable we need to be careful that this organization does not infringe on the sovereignty of the states who are part of it.

The Prime Minister of Fefenia

The Government of Fefenia is concerned that this resolution does not contain any specific statements against the selling of organs for transplantation.

Also, it would seem to me that while a central organization assisting organ donation might be desirable we need to be careful that this organization does not infringe on the sovereignty of the states who are part of it.

The Prime Minister of Fefenia

He does bring up a good point...also another thing has been brought to the attention of The Armed Republic of NVR, is that what about the black market...? Could this bring about people who think they can perform this type of procedure on their own?

Cabinia stands opposed to this legislation.

1) The statement about participation being voluntary is a non-starter. Individuals may choose to particpate, or not, but through game mechanics, every UN nation is obligated to participate in the program.

2) The International Red Cross does not have a transportation network sufficient to deal with the demands of this measure, which would lead to dire consequences for them and their primary mission. It would cause a massive increase in their demands for funding and manpower, and ultimately detract their funding, manpower, and infrastruture necessary to perform their primary mission, which is emergency relief.

Just to give you an idea of what would be required... a heart, once removed from the donor, must be transplanted into the recipient within four to five hours. Assume one hour to transport the heart from the hospital to the airport, another hour from the destination airport to the destination hospital, and allow another hour for the operation to proceed to the point where the donor heart is in place and being nourished by the recipient's blood. That leaves you just two hours of travel by plane, which simply isn't enough for international travel.

And in order to maximize travel time, the IRC would have to have a manned vehicle on standby at the source hospital, a vehicle on standby at the destination airport, and a manned, fueled, and fully prepped plane waiting at the airport. You're effectively asking for planes in every airport in the world on full standby 24/7, and the fuel and manpower costs would be catastrophic, greater than the budgets of all the world's air forces combined.

This measure makes no sense from either a public health or economic standpoint, and simultaneously grossly injures the ability of the International Red Cross from performing their jobs as first-responders to catastrophic events. Cabinia stands vehemently opposed to this proposal, and urges the rest of the world to do likewise.

4, All patients shall be treated equally and no patients shall get priority based on wealth or status.

This is the only beef I have with it. I don't want some homeless guy getting precedence over a president.

I am also confused by the reference to an 'oversupply' - this perhaps supposes that if a country signed up to the UNWODC then they would be entitled to ensure organs for their own people first and any excess fed into the UNWODC system. What in that case is the incentive for a country to harvest an excess of transplant organs?

Maybe if the country has an 'oversupply' of kidneys, but a shortage of lungs, then it would be in their interests to sign up for the program in order to have access to lungs. The country's kidneys could then be sent to other countries.

I don't want some homeless guy getting precedence over a president.

If people don't get priority based on their status, then that isn't going to happen!

We should grow clones, and if you get hurt, they just replace the injured item with the cloned item

Unless there has been a huge leap in technology, growing human organs separately isn't really feasible. I'm no expert but I think that one problem would be that the human body isn't simply a collection of parts - they are all linked and communicate with each other via hormones, nerve impulses etc., and a lack of these signals could disrupt the organs' development.

The Government of Fefenia is concerned that this resolution does not contain any specific statements against the selling of organs for transplantation.

It also doesn't protect old ladies crossing busy streets, but as with selling organs, that's not what this resolution is about. Selling organs is a different issue altogether, feel free to write a resolution about it.

But what would be the point of the country creating an oversupply of kidneys or lungs? It would just harvest enough to meet its own needs and that would be it. You don't just randomly build up stockpiles of spare organs - they don't last long enough and the operations aren't cheap.

Edit BTW I'm primarily referring to a country with compulsory organ donation here.

Recognising and affirming article 4 of Resolution #26, the Universal Bill of Rights, and accepting that the membership of the UNWODC, by any Nation or individual is voluntary,

Since the World Blood Bank is mandatory, this resolution is illegal even if we ignore the fact that it’s an ‘amendment in disguise’ – because we would have to repeal the Blood Bank resolution before we could change it to voluntary participation.

Besides that, I find it silly for most proposals to make participation ‘voluntary’, because if you are trying to make the world a ‘better place’ you can’t just say ‘help us, if you feel like it.’

On Delegate Approval the UN will set up a World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC) to centralise and process all the worlds organ needs.

Woah! This makes each nation have to ask their region’s delegate to participate in the UNWODC? And if s/he says NO than no nation can participate. Besides that, the UN Delegate should have no control over any of the nation’s s/he represents (represent being the major verb here) at the UN.

The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis so that on death donors organs can be harvested on finding the card and sent directly, after testing for type and condition, to the suitable patient in need of an organ transplant. In clarification, the UNWODC does not store the organs but directs the source where to ship the available organs and by what method, whilst simultaneously notifying the recipient patient and medical facility to be ready to begin the transplant as soon as the organs are delivered.

So… the UNWODC is basically a call center, and they have nothing to do with the actual organ donations, but rather just a bunch of people calling a bunch of other people. Sounds like more messy bureaucratic mess to me, on top of the already formed Blood Bank.

Only healthy organs are to be used, and only for saving lives by way of organ transplant. In no way are the organs be used by peoples influenced by cannibalism, vampirism or any other nefarious use.


This interferes with the daily issues, and is therefore in violation of the rules (game mechanics). (cannibalism is a daily issue, and you can decide for your nation if you will allow cannibalism – if you do allow it, you are no longer allowed to participate in the UNWODC, and somebody would have to write code to sort all these people out.)


To recap, this resolution is in volition of three rules: it attempts to amend a pre-existing resolution, the resolution is in conflict with a pre-existing unrepealed resolution, and it messes with the game mechanics.

It is redundant and illegal, and even with all of that, it’ll still pass *sigh*. I vote NO

There a multiple reasons why one should oppose this resolution.

The most important is that since this is voluntary, the resolution just becomes a bureaucracy creator.

There are already voluntary ways nations can co-ordinate their needs. Whether it be that they have a surplus or not.

Nations can:

Post messages on the NS board
Post messages on Regional Boards
TM each other.
Communicate offsite by boards, IMs, or e-mail.

Let the individual nations handle the costs between each other. The UN does not need to create more paperwork than is necessary.

Lets work together to make the UN a leaner more efficient body of nations. Not a bureaucratic quagmire.

President Kimo

On Delegate Approval the UN will set up a World Organ Donor Centre (UNWODC) to centralise and process all the worlds organ needs.Woah! This makes each nation have to ask their region’s delegate to participate in the UNWODC? And if s/he says NO than no nation can participate. Besides that, the UN Delegate should have no control over any of the nation’s s/he represents (represent being the major verb here) at the UN.
I believe this means that UN Delegates must agree to approve the resolution to begin the creation of this bureau. The Delegates would play no further role. In fact, Delegate Approval is only the first part of the process - it must be passed by the General Assembly for this to happen.

This is simply poor phrasing on the part of the author, akin to saying "...as proposed by the Great Nation of MyNation ..." I wish people would quit including the process as part of the rule of law, but what can you do?This interferes with the daily issues, and is therefore in violation of the rules (game mechanics). (cannibalism is a daily issue...)
Sorry, no. Lots of UN resolutions affect the same things as Issues (think Euthanasia). While they appear to be the same, they are not considered to be by the game engine. Therefore, no game mechanics issues are raised.

I count 9 places where a "z" should be instead of an "s" (Recognize, Organization, Centralize, Prioritize). Maybe this is a British thing? There are also a few other grammatical mistakes. A little more care should be taken for something that will influence nations, come under the interpretation of "experts", and remain a historical text.

I also tend to shy away from resolutions that create new organizations or call for more funding for organizations. This feels like an indirect taxation on McGlynn's citizens, which is a violation of resolution #4. And you will then say it is voluntary...

Although this is "voluntary", it will affect my nation if passed. The whole "voluntary" thing should be addressed, and clarified by the UN counsel. If you are a member of the UN, any resolution that passes will enact changes to your nation, whether it states "voluntary" in the text or not. Also the whole idea of the UN, and it's resolution procedures, are to bring into effect freedoms, ideas, projects, treaties, etc. that all member nations will abide by. If you leave a loophole as big as "voluntary", then it should not qualify as a UN resolution. It should be a treaty among participating nations, to be handled in the forums. If it is brought before the UN, then it is an all-or-not proposition.

For these reasons, and not for lack of interest in the ideals of the resolution, McGlynn will vote AGAINST this resolution. We hope that the resolution will fail, but the idea to live on. We are also ready to join any other nations who wish to create and join a treaty among nations to put in place a World Organ Donation Organization, or to expand the IRCO to handle the bureaucracy.

I only want to know one thing about this resolution: WHO exactly will be eligible to receive the organs coordinated by the UNWODC? The resolution claims to be dealing with the entire WORLD's organ requirements. Is this the case? Is any person in any country eligible to receive organs under the program?

OR is it only open to participating members of the UNWODC deal? If so is there any level of minimum participation in the deal? If I have only three donors in my country will I still be allowed to receive transplants under the system?

Thanks.

If you are a member of the UN, any resolution that passes will enact changes to your nation, whether it states "voluntary" in the text or not.

As Tularia is gripped in the throes of civil strife, there is no credible individual or council that may vote on any UN resolutions, but out-of-character, I want to see this resolution killed because of the reason quoted above. There is no such thing as a 'voluntary' resolution.

Refer to the So I'm a UN member. Now what? section on this page: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32957/page=faq#UN

"your nation will ... be affected by any resolutions that pass." (emphasis added)

First off congrats to Venerable libertarians for getting this to the floor, well done :).

Crydonia has voted for this resolution.

Against... Maybe I can't get my head out of putting RL relevance to these issues 'cause it looks like I'll be bucking the trend again... I find this one especially silly and sickening because it's something that can't possibly have any real effect on how any nation handles a domestic issue... If anything it could lead to poorer nations or extreme nations using "organ farms (like Nazi death camps)" - who's to say that wouldn't happen?

I guess the key here is if you can make a silk purse out of a sows ear most people will support it blindly... :gundge:

Originally Posted by ElJefe
I don't want some homeless guy getting precedence over a president.

If people don't get priority based on their status, then that isn't going to happen!

Yeah it will. Suppose the homeless guy 'needs' it more; he would be granted priority. I say that shouldn't happen.

A life is a life. Putting more or less value on a human (or other) life simply based on the wealth and status of the person concerned is disgusting in my opinion.

The homeless person has as much right to live as the president, and if he needs the organ more, then he should get it. In that senario, the president would'nt be as sick and in danger of dying, so could wait a bit longer. Does this also mean that the upper class woman who's husband is a CEO deserves an organ before a lower class woman who's husband is a factory worker?. The organs are distributed according to need, not who the recipient is, what their status in society is, or what they do for a living.

You do realize your a Libertarian & our credo is the less government. My nation already have a perfectly viable solution to this process. The type of solution any true libertarian would embrace. Organ donating is a viable business. Hospitals by blood & organs from others at reasonable prices. A system enforced would halt the fair business practices in my nation. Plus how are poor kids going to pay for college if we kill this business practice. More welfare? Again I ask what kind of Libertarian are you?

Asswhoopia shall not and will not submit her citizens to morally ambiguous ventures. The harvesting of organs is strictly prohibited by all religions observed within the borders of Asswhoopia and we will continue to oppose any resolutions which flaunt the moral borders clearly defined by our faiths.

You do realize your a Libertarian & our credo is the less government. My nation already have a perfectly viable solution to this process. The type of solution any true libertarian would embrace. Organ donating is a viable business. Hospitals by blood & organs from others at reasonable prices. A system enforced would halt the fair business practices in my nation. Plus how are poor kids going to pay for college if we kill this business practice. More welfare? Again I ask what kind of Libertarian are you?

I agree, more social wellfare programs will not fix this problem. Compulsory organ harvesting and other such programs are only a bandaid on the larger problem. More jobs are needed, stronger economy breeds more jobs, more jobs allows people to pull themselves out of the gutter they placed themselves in. Jobs, education, and companies putting money back into the society in charitable situation are better ideas. Welfare only breeds a lazy class of people more willing to live off the workers blood sweat and tears of society.

I can't help but feel that this resolution could do with a complete rewrite that removes all the extraneous emotive blither. Were Werteswandel to be a UN member, we would not be inclined to support.

As a passing comment, the delegate from McGlynn appears to have a confused grasp of the English language. How odd for this to be so for a UN delegate.

Although Squibara agrees in principle with the resolution, it feels that it should guarantee its own citizens an organ BEFORE outsourcing these organs. If the resolution stated that ONLY surplus organs were outsourced to the "central processing agency", then Squibara would vote in favour, however, as this is not implicit within the resolution, Squibara votes AGAINST this resolution

Join me in voting against! This bill does nothing to either maintain or increase the profits of corporations or government officials. And, in-fact, it sounds kind-of hippy-like. NAY!

Karl Rove :mad:
Democratically-elected President
The United States of Stupid Jerkwad Land
"Bombs don't cost money; they make money!"

Ok theres a lot to get through here people so please be patient.

All organs in the UNWODC are donated, thus not bought thus not sold.

Distances are covered by the weightings. If the Infrastructure is not available to supply a healthy organ for transplant then it shall not be sent. that would be pointless.

All individual nations as well as individuals can Opt out of the UNWODC. it is entirely voluntary. the original idea was to ensure the even spread of organs as in my own nation there was an oversupply.
Oversupply = More organs than our nation required. Thus wasted.
Meanwhile in a neighbouring state, there was a huge need for organ donors.

As for Black market operations, the Patients have a much higher chance of getting a transplant and quicker, so why go to the Black market? The organs and transport and Administration of the Direction of whom gets an organ is covered by the UNWODC funds. Transplantation in nations remain unchanged, the operations being covered by National or Individual private health insurance.

As for priority not being influenced by wealth or status, this is in keeping with the hippocratic oath, and equality.

But what would be the point of the country creating an oversupply of kidneys or lungs? It would just harvest enough to meet its own needs and that would be it. You don't just randomly build up stockpiles of spare organs - they don't last long enough and the operations aren't cheap.

People die and if they have a donor card the organs are harvested. Then they look to the requirements for organ transplants. If there are no requirements then the organs are disposed of. Thus wasting an oversupply.

I count 9 places where a "z" should be instead of an "s" (Recognize, Organization, Centralize, Prioritize). Maybe this is a British thing? There are also a few other grammatical mistakes. A little more care should be taken for something that will influence nations, come under the interpretation of "experts", and remain a historical text.

I am Irish and i use an Irish English dictionary. Spelling is irrelevent. E.G. In the USA the word is color. In the UK and Ireland The word is Colour. Both are the exact same thing. Both are correct.

I only want to know one thing about this resolution: WHO exactly will be eligible to receive the organs coordinated by the UNWODC? The resolution claims to be dealing with the entire WORLD's organ requirements. Is this the case? Is any person in any country eligible to receive organs under the program?

Any patient who has been entered in the database of the UNWODC is eligible for a transplant.

You do realize your a Libertarian & our credo is the less government. My nation already have a perfectly viable solution to this process. The type of solution any true libertarian would embrace. Organ donating is a viable business. Hospitals by blood & organs from others at reasonable prices. A system enforced would halt the fair business practices in my nation. Plus how are poor kids going to pay for college if we kill this business practice. More welfare? Again I ask what kind of Libertarian are you?

Libertarian.... Synonyms = Liberal, tolerant, permissive, Open Minded, Broad Minded, Democratic

Antonym = Oppressive.



I have one Question? Where the hell were all you naysayers when this was being discussed HERE in the UN Forums. It has been here for comment and review for at least the last month under three separate threads. The first posting was the 28th January 2005. and it has been a hot topic since.

Original thread for the UNWODC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8054635#post8054635)

A life is a life. Putting more or less value on a human (or other) life simply based on the wealth and status of the person concerned is disgusting in my opinion.

The homeless person has as much right to live as the president, and if he needs the organ more, then he should get it. In that senario, the president would'nt be as sick and in danger of dying, so could wait a bit longer. Does this also mean that the upper class woman who's husband is a CEO deserves an organ before a lower class woman who's husband is a factory worker?. The organs are distributed according to need, not who the recipient is, what their status in society is, or what they do for a living.

That is strictly your opinion, and I disagree with it.

That is strictly your opinion, and I disagree with it.

ermm, I think I said that :rolleyes:

and what you said is the same, and I, obviously, disagree with that :D.

First, to tackle the easily deconstructed arguments. This resolution is legal. I trust the Secretary-General and the UN staff (OOC: mods) to verify the status of every proposal long before it is allowed to come to a general vote.

This resolution is beneficial. Krioval possesses sufficiently advanced technology to allow for international transport of needed organs. Further, it encourages benevolent cultures with advanced medical technology to show other nations how organs could be preserved for longer periods of time, how operations could be performed more quickly without additional loss of life, or how they could be more efficiently transported.

It encourages governments to adopt a more vocal role in advocating (or even compelling) organ donation, as local "surpluses" can be transported to where they are needed through the mechanics of this resolution. The outcome of this program is that medically advanced nations, who are able to correct major problems without as many organ transplants will be able to donate organs from their dead more reasily.

I see a lot of newcomers to the forum who insist on playing the "national sovereignty" trump card. While that is perfectly acceptable to do, it does not a compelling argument against this resolution make. The entire purpose of the United Nations is to facilitate the passage of resolutions that member nations want, for whatever reason. Krioval, for example, would like nothing more than the United Nations to become an extension of Kriovalian law and culture. This is perfectly normal, if not necessarily admirable, and it fits well with the design of this organization.

Finally, if individuals have truly compelling reasons to vote against this resolution, I am willing to entertain them, but I won't hesitate to point out the inherent flaws in said arguments where I find them. Thank you all for your attention.

Lord Jevo Telovar
Ambassador from Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

Could I just pose a hypothetical situation? I run a country that practices compulsory organ donation. If this issue is passed I not only don't sign up to the voluntary proposal but I also make carrying UNWODC donor cards a capital offence (under my laws the rights to organs automatically revert to the state so carrying one of those cards is in effect theft and treason). In addition to that I strongly encourage every person in need of an organ transplant in my country to get themselves entered into the UNWODC database. Then I watch as I save millions a year on my health budget. Now imagine that lots of countries do the same. What happens to the other countries who have fully opted into the proposal and now find that rather than seeing a net benefit of using the new centralised system now see a huge drop in levels of healthcare as more and more of their organ transplants are sent overseas to selfish countries like me?

Could I just pose a hypothetical situation? I run a country that practices compulsory organ donation. If this issue is passed I not only don't sign up to the voluntary proposal but I also make carrying UNWODC donor cards a capital offence (under my laws the rights to organs automatically revert to the state so carrying one of those cards is in effect theft and treason). In addition to that I strongly encourage every person in need of an organ transplant in my country to get themselves entered into the UNWODC database. Then I watch as I save millions a year on my health budget. Now imagine that lots of countries do the same. What happens to the other countries who have fully opted into the proposal and now find that rather than seeing a net benefit of using the new centralised system now see a huge drop in levels of healthcare as more and more of their organ transplants are sent overseas to selfish countries like me?

I'm guessing that you don't receive unless you're willing to give. Even if the resolution doesn't stipulate that directly, I would imagine that countries would pass legislation to that effect on the heels of this, if not pre-emptively. The resolution doesn't seem to deal specifically with "selfish nations", but typically, "selfish nations" get their butts handed to them at some point by larger nations or coalitions. Something to keep in mind.

But surely the decision would not lie with the individual country but with the UNWODC itself. And what about grey areas - should the people of country X with only 1 donor card carrier per million people be as eligible to receive transplants as country Y with one donor card carrier per 100 people? Not all the poeple of country X are selfish are you going to prevent them receiving organs too?



Also, going back to my earlier point about surplusses which I don't think I conveyed well. Supposing I am a country which practices compulsory organ donation. Suppose I can cope with my country's requirements for transplant organs by harvesting the organs of 1 % of my people on a need only basis thereby not amassing much of a surplus. Imagine then that 50% of my people sign up for the new donor system (admirable behaviour). However because I cannot guarantee that my people will receive these organs in favour of other countries I still have to carry out organ transplants strictly for my country. In addition to this however I am forced to carry out fifty times my normal level of transplant ops at great costs in money and skilled labour all of which will go to benefit other countries. Accordingly my levels of healthcare drop, my taxes sky rocket and my country goes doen the drain.

Libertarian.... Synonyms = Liberal, tolerant, permissive, Open Minded, Broad Minded, Democratic

Antonym = Oppressive.


Where did you come up with that? Libertarianism is not synonymous with liberalism. Liberals believe in social freedom, but economic control. They're lefties. Libertarians believe in both economic and social freedom... so while they would support liberals on a topic like abortion rights, they would be at odds with liberals over something like welfare.


ib·er·tar·i·an Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)
n.

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.



This proposal is not in keeping with libertarian principles. Cabinia practices moderate libertarianism, so stop by if you want to familiarize yourself with the philosophy in action.

Okay, I'll admit. I didn't read the enitire thread. Its six pages long, so I just read the most recent page. I have a problem with this resolution though. This forces my government to increase tax dollars and give away their organs to those that my country may not deem entirely worthy. We're a democratic nation and I would hate to see my peoples organs going to the people of a country run by a dictator who may or may not actually get the organs to who is deemed worthy. It's quite possible that I could be taxing my people more to give away organs to people that I believe may not end up getting them. Besides, I agree with a few of the apove people that selling organs is a viable way of making money.

Dear Mr. Murphey,

There is nothing wrong with your proposal, except, that I do not believe in organ donations. It's against my religion. But as always, I am bound by the U.N. regardless of the outcome.

Now, on to a more pressing matter. Is your keyboard missing the letter Z, or possibly the letter Z on your keyboard is broken, or maybe your english teacher in school did not do his or her job, or maybe I missed the boat when they removed the letter Z from the dictionary.

Z as in Centralize
Z as in Organization
Z as in Prioritize
Z as in Recognize

You are not alone however. I have noticed this on a consistent basis in today's society. It is troubling to me. Don't discriminate against the letter Z, it has feelings too you know.

GOD bless!

Now, on to a more pressing matters. Is your keyboard missing the letter Z, or possibly the letter Z on your keyboard is broken, or maybe your english teacher in school did not do his or her job, or maybe I missed the boat when they removed the letter Z from the dictionary.

Z as in Centralize
Z as in Organization
Z as in Prioritize
Z as in Recognize

You are not alone however. I have noticed this on a consistent basis in today's society. It is troubling to me. Don't discriminate against the letter Z, it has feelings too you know.


You should refer to Venerable libertarians post at the top of the page, about halfway down the post. Welcome to Knowledge-of-Other-Countries-Land!

Okay, I'll admit. I didn't read the enitire thread. Its six pages long, so I just read the most recent page. I have a problem with this resolution though. This forces my government to increase tax dollars and give away their organs to those that my country may not deem entirely worthy. We're a democratic nation and I would hate to see my peoples organs going to the people of a country run by a dictator who may or may not actually get the organs to who is deemed worthy. It's quite possible that I could be taxing my people more to give away organs to people that I believe may not end up getting them. Besides, I agree with a few of the apove people that selling organs is a viable way of making money.

Your nation could easily restrict donations to nations offering reciprocal donations. I don't think that it goes against either the letter or spirit of the resolution. Further, the resolution doesn't deal with selling organs whatsoever. If that's what your government does, that's fine, but don't expect to wield that as an argument that other nations shouldn't support a mutual organ donation resolution. Further, it is a mild resolution in that participation is strictly voluntary though there is probably some small degree of bureaucracy involved even to opt out (OOC: taxes will rise slightly however you RP it).

Lord Jevo Telovar
Ambassador from Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

You should refer to Venerable libertarians post at the top of the page, about halfway down the post. Welcome to Knowledge-of-Other-Countries-Land!

Thanks for getting that before I did. Many places outside the (RL) USA use "s" in place of "z".

But surely the decision would not lie with the individual country but with the UNWODC itself. And what about grey areas - should the people of country X with only 1 donor card carrier per million people be as eligible to receive transplants as country Y with one donor card carrier per 100 people? Not all the poeple of country X are selfish are you going to prevent them receiving organs too?

Also, going back to my earlier point about surplusses which I don't think I conveyed well. Supposing I am a country which practices compulsory organ donation. Suppose I can cope with my country's requirements for transplant organs by harvesting the organs of 1 % of my people on a need only basis thereby not amassing much of a surplus. Imagine then that 50% of my people sign up for the new donor system (admirable behaviour). However because I cannot guarantee that my people will receive these organs in favour of other countries I still have to carry out organ transplants strictly for my country. In addition to this however I am forced to carry out fifty times my normal level of transplant ops at great costs in money and skilled labour all of which will go to benefit other countries. Accordingly my levels of healthcare drop, my taxes sky rocket and my country goes doen the drain.
Neither of your arguments holds any water.

Primus you talked about outlawing UNWODC cards, then you talk about statistical differences. IMNSHO, all nations that don't actively oppose UNWODC would share in the benefits according to need. How is it possible to have a problem with that?

Dosequis you worry about the costs within your nation of excess operations. Does it say anywhere in the resolution that the recipient's insurance shouldn't reimburse the donor's insurance for the cost of the operation? It doesn't. In fact, the resolution makes no mention whatsoever of who should pay the doctors. I didn't see anything there preventing you from legislating that out-of-nationstate recipients shouldn't reimburse the doctors and hospitals.

Okay, I'll admit. I didn't read the enitire thread. Its six pages long, so I just read the most recent page. I have a problem with this resolution though. This forces my government to increase tax dollars and give away their organs to those that my country may not deem entirely worthy. We're a democratic nation and I would hate to see my peoples organs going to the people of a country run by a dictator who may or may not actually get the organs to who is deemed worthy. It's quite possible that I could be taxing my people more to give away organs to people that I believe may not end up getting them. Besides, I agree with a few of the apove people that selling organs is a viable way of making money.
OOC:
This is akin to the US providing grain to North Korea because the citizens are starving, at the same time the US has an embargo against North Korea, is accusing it of nuclear weapons building, and is still technically in a state of war (or maybe a state of "police action") against North Korea.

IC:
You would subject humanitarian aid to political considerations? That is morally reprehensible. The bad government oppressing the people is not the fault of the people.

It is far, far more effective to engage the totalitarian regime than it is to isolate it. Every organ that extended a life in that dictatorship will mean a dozen people trying to overthrow that dictatorship and achieve democracy.

The mad dictatorships most likely will not participate in UNWODC, and so will not be recipients of your citizens' organs.

Why, exactly, did you have to use the word "Bloody" as an adjective in the proposal? What does that accomplish, aside from making you look foolishly irrational and putting a European expletive in a piece of U.N. legislation?

Why, exactly, did you have to use the word "Bloody" as an adjective in the proposal? What does that accomplish, aside from making you look foolishly irrational and putting a European expletive in a piece of U.N. legislation?
Bloody is a perfectly good word to use when discussing surgery in general and organ donation in particular.

OOC: ;)

There a multiple reasons why one should oppose this resolution.

The most important is that since this is voluntary, the resolution just becomes a bureaucracy creator.

There are already voluntary ways nations can co-ordinate their needs. Whether it be that they have a surplus or not.

Nations can:

Post messages on the NS board
Post messages on Regional Boards
TM each other.
Communicate offsite by boards, IMs, or e-mail.

Let the individual nations handle the costs between each other. The UN does not need to create more paperwork than is necessary.

Lets work together to make the UN a leaner more efficient body of nations. Not a bureaucratic quagmire.

President Kimo
Kimo, can you name all of the citizens in your country awaiting organ transplants out of your 12,000,000 population?

For how many of them have you TG'd other nations, asking whether they have any spare organs handy? I haven't received a single telegram from you on this subject.

For nations who care about their citizens, this resolution sets up a system which can quickly find those thousands of matches every day. It does, in fact, "make the UN a leaner[,] more efficient body of nations".

I only want to know one thing about this resolution: WHO exactly will be eligible to receive the organs coordinated by the UNWODC? The resolution claims to be dealing with the entire WORLD's organ requirements. Is this the case? Is any person in any country eligible to receive organs under the program?

OR is it only open to participating members of the UNWODC deal? If so is there any level of minimum participation in the deal? If I have only three donors in my country will I still be allowed to receive transplants under the system?

Thanks.
The more interesting question to me is, can non-UN nationstates participate in UNWODC?

I hope so, because I would prefer all the nationstates in my region to benefit from it.

Asswhoopia shall not and will not submit her citizens to morally ambiguous ventures. The harvesting of organs is strictly prohibited by all religions observed within the borders of Asswhoopia and we will continue to oppose any resolutions which flaunt the moral borders clearly defined by our faiths.
Our lawyers will be contacting you in the morning concerning your blatant trademark infringement.

I'm too nice to post a link to dictionary.com and suggest you look up the definition of "voluntary", but...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=voluntary

The main issues the people of my country have with this proposal are that,
1. It gets its funding through Tax-payer money.
and
2. It damages the overall soveriegnty of the member nations of the UN.

---
1. In the proposal there is mention of funding through the budgets of the member nations,
"Funding for the UNWODC shall be sourced from the coffers of the International Community, By way of increased governmental funding and fund raisers held locally by the IRCO and other relief and charitable organisations."

While it does source its funding through other means, the people of East Romana are concerned that their Ents will not be going to programs that they themselves voted on. Not only that but there are still plenty of other private organizations that do essentially the same thing that this Resolution calls for.
Being the small country that we are, we cannot financially support any sort of program that extends beyond our own boarders.

2. The larger issue that the people of East Romana are concerned about is that this Resolution (and others of the same scope) damages the existing soveriegnty of the nations of the UN. While it is important for the UN to create a sense of unity throughout the world, it is also important for the UN to presserve the Sovereignty. Point in this case is simply that this Resolution is essentially a Socialist Program. Not every nation is Socialist (East Romana is in fact Socialist, but that does not mean we feel that ALL nations should be.), and for program such as this to exist it puts extra pressure on non-socialist nations, and nations with struggling economies. If this program were to take effect, it would indirectly infringe on a nation's sovereign rights to manage its own people through its own means.

In conclusion, as good as it would be on the humanitarian side to create an international organ donation center, it would be yet another one of thousands already in existance through private humanitarian aid companies and would only do more harm to nations of lesser economic prowess. East Romana begs the member nations of the UN to evaluate their own healthcare systems and make a careful decision based on how much you REALLY need this program.

Respectfully,
Edmund Durbach
Ambassador to the UN
East Romana

I strongly recommend that nations concerned over sovereignty please read the parts in which it is clearly stated that participation is voluntary AND that the Center merely coordinates transfer on an individual basis. It doesn't mandate that every member nation surrender their donated organs to some central agency that then redistributes them at will. Thus, sovereignty should be barely affected by this resolution at all.

I strongly recommend that nations concerned over sovereignty please read the parts in which it is clearly stated that participation is voluntary AND that the Center merely coordinates transfer on an individual basis. It doesn't mandate that every member nation surrender their donated organs to some central agency that then redistributes them at will. Thus, sovereignty should be barely affected by this resolution at all.

Okay, well that answers the question I was going to make, seeing as I have a high donation ratio whereas other nations may not, so benefitting from other nations at expense of my own citizens.

Neither of your arguments holds any water.

Primus you talked about outlawing UNWODC cards, then you talk about statistical differences. IMNSHO, all nations that don't actively oppose UNWODC would share in the benefits according to need. How is it possible to have a problem with that?

Dosequis you worry about the costs within your nation of excess operations. Does it say anywhere in the resolution that the recipient's insurance shouldn't reimburse the donor's insurance for the cost of the operation? It doesn't. In fact, the resolution makes no mention whatsoever of who should pay the doctors. I didn't see anything there preventing you from legislating that out-of-nationstate recipients shouldn't reimburse the doctors and hospitals.

These aren't a series of inter-connecting arguments rather a series of examples of how the system as it stands can only encourage selfish behaviour on the parts of states and, by extension, the people who are going to be signing up to the donor system. In EVERY CASE it is in the best interests of a state and the people within that state to carry out as few transplant operations to send over seas as possible.

And you're right, the proposition DOESN'T say any thing about my legislating that other countries should pay for my operations, mostly because I'm sure that would be illegal. (Also bear in mind that it is only UN countries that are even required to have medical insurance) Nor, in fact, as others have suggested does it prevent me from making deals with other countries that I will only ship organs to them if they match my level of contribution.
Perhaps the reason it doesn't say these things is that the resolution is for a centralised organ donation system where recipients of donations are not controlled by individual countries but by the central UNWODC body. And if people want a system where they can control where their organs go, as I've been trying to suggest they should, then perhaps a system of individual treaties within nations would be a more effective strategy.



Oh and I've had another thought about other countries paying for other people's transplant ops.

How are you going to prevent the system from turning into an organ market?

Do you charge the recipient the actual cost of the operation? If so why would he want to get the organ from Firstworldia who might charge him $20,000 for the privilege when other people are getting their organs from Thirdworldistan who are charging only $200. If you charge a flat rate for operations then surely that encourages countries to ensure that their operations are carried out as cheaply as possible, probably using less than well trained imigrant labour and so on.

The Armed Republic of NVR would like to address all the nations whom this concerns. You nations that are trying to sway the judgement of other nations should stop and take the time to read this. I'm pretty sure that im speaking on behalf of all the nations when I say that we all have the common sense of what's right or wrong, but whether we choose to do the right or wrong thing is completely up to us. By saying that the law isn't a good idea will not or should not do any good. After all we have the right to vote to state our OWN opinions on these issues, whether it's right or wrong. If people do not like the law they will vote against it, but you cannot try to sway people into voting for whichever way you have voted. We all have our own minds and if our mind is to vote against or for...so be it leave it at that.

Thank You,
The Armed Republic of NVR

Just how much is this resolution going to cost?

Tis about saving lives, not feeding vampires or canabalistic nut jobs!
Ok, so you dissagree with the Proposal. You have the option not to participate. However, the idea behind it is to prevent wasted organs where possible. An oversupply of organs in one nation can be easily sent to a nation with a lack of donors.

Ok so you speak of this oversupply of organs we have. I guess thats why when there were proposals for cloning a major argument was organs because theres not enough. I guess theres just so many organs that people aren't dying every year before they can get the organs we need. So unless your starting an organ farm i really don't know where your getting this oversupply.

It is clear that most of the votes for this resolution are swayed by the "feel good" title. What makes the resolution so hard to swallow for the voters against, is the dishonest use of the word VOLUNTARY. This word is a red herring. This program is not voluntary in the most basic sense. All member nations have to pay taxes to support this mess. Individual nations are not created to be the slush fund for the UN. The UN is there for the nations of the world, not the other way around.
Unless there is way to make paying taxes to the UN voluntary, I will always vote against resolutions that can be done by nations on their own.

Remember: Individual Responsibilty is the key to Freedom

President Kimo

There is no need to pass this resolution. I agree that most of the "Yay" votes are simply people that don't wish to vote against the feel good anthem that the resolution embodies. It is like voting against free school lunches or something. However the reason I vote no and oppose the entire thing is because the devil is in the details. I don't want people from any nation to have to throw their organs into some pool of donors from everywhere. Just because you give an organ doesn't mean you lose all say in where it goes. What if someone doesn't want to help a certain nation? It is their body and they should be able to decide. What if a nation doesn't want to assist another nation. It should be there choice to help. I think we should set up a department that handles the cooperation in this matter but it shouldn't be mandatory, it should be solely at the discretion of each individual nation to ask another nation for surplus organs.

There is no need to pass this resolution. I agree that most of the "Yay" votes are simply people that don't wish to vote against the feel good anthem that the resolution embodies. It is like voting against free school lunches or something. However the reason I vote no and oppose the entire thing is because the devil is in the details. I don't want people from any nation to have to throw their organs into some pool of donors from everywhere. Just because you give an organ doesn't mean you lose all say in where it goes. What if someone doesn't want to help a certain nation? It is their body and they should be able to decide. What if a nation doesn't want to assist another nation. It should be there choice to help. I think we should set up a department that handles the cooperation in this matter but it shouldn't be mandatory, it should be solely at the discretion of each individual nation to ask another nation for surplus organs.

Someone is dying of kidney failure and you are going to not help them? You don't think that is just a tad inhumane?
What if people don't want their organs going to gay people? Or black people? Or elves? Or people who aren't rich? Or people who vote right-wing?

Where do you draw the line in how much a person can discriminate?

I've got another objection (the first one being technical impossibilities to transport most organs over long distances). This resolution could be bad for donation rates. Countries can simply use other nation's oversupplies, and need not campaign in their own country for this sensitive issue. This could lead to a fall in donation rates in oversupplying countries and international tensions.

The Sentiment behind the proposal is admirable, and I salute you for your efforts to address this issue on a global scale. However, it's good intentions are outweighed by the sheer size and funding of what you're proposing.

Imagine, for one moment, the funding it would take to structure, and then maintain a body like this on an annual basis and on a world wide scale. Now imagine the types of transport that would have to be allocated to move these organs across continents and oceans in time for the donated organs to still be viable, tie in even more funding to cover that.

Now imagine the type of system that would be required to fairly and evenly distribute the donated organs amongst the UN Nations of the world, and the enormous debates which would arise over the size of donations needed per capita, Nations declaring that their donations are being drained more than another. It has already happened here, and this is not even International Law as of yet.

What this proposal does is turn a sacrificial humanitarian act on the part of caring individual citizens of the world into a giant cluster . . bomb which would backfire and cause vast resources to go to waste within the first year. That waste would compound over each subsequent year and an enormous amount of resources which could have been contributed to effective, efficient charities across the globe would be drained and wasted.

A better proposal would be one which creates a social education program pushing the need for Organ donations within a person's respective Nation, and another which would regulate the dispersal of donated organs so that Money and Influence plays no part in determining who gets what. There are several good points in this proposal which would make valid proposals as enahncements to existing UN Resolutions . . but the creation of a World Organ Donation Center is ludicrous and wasteful. It would fail before it got off the ground.

Again, I admire your sentiment here, but as opposed to focusing on revision after revision in order to keep the UNWODC in there, you should have considered the fincially feasible and logistically effective methods of increasing donations within the Nations of the world, and broken your proposal into several which would focus on more realistic goals and eliminated the creation of a fund sponge body which will only convolute and absorb vast amounts of money which could be used in MANY more effective areas.

I'm sorry, but I vote no. A resounding NO.

Someone is dying of kidney failure and you are going to not help them? You don't think that is just a tad inhumane?
What if people don't want their organs going to gay people? Or black people? Or elves? Or people who aren't rich? Or people who vote right-wing?

Where do you draw the line in how much a person can discriminate?

I think that since donations are voluntary, donors should have the right to decide where they go to.

I think that since donations are voluntary, donors should have the right to decide where they go to.

Why? Many nations don't allow for selective donation upon a person's death (if they're an organ donor). I have never seen a donor form/license that lists restrictions on who can receive donated organs. Does your country actually allow that?

:headbang:
This resolution is the biggest slap in the face to all sovereign nations. Bla Bla Bla its voluntary. INCORRECT. ALL Nations must support and fund this resolution. Its voluntary that the citizens have a choice to have their body parts taken so that some Alcoholic with liver disease can go destroy another one, or some methanphetamine addict can now have access to new parts after they effectively destroyed their own. This Resolution is Mandatory for all nations to participate and to FUND. My citizens do not want their organs going to some drunk bum who is determined to be a dreg on society and drink their liver apart. I find this resolution a complete Insult to my nation, in the fact that we HAVE to support funding and be apart of this scheme. Who do you presume to be to tell all UN sovereign Nations that we HAVE to participate in this Crock of an attempt to Force your liberal views on the rest of us. Free education is one thing, Mandatory participation in organ donation is another. This Resolution is a Perversion of humanity. You must be crazy to think that you can mandate for all nations to participate in organ harvesting. IF you want organ harvesting in your nation enact legislation for it in YOUR nation. How dare you presume to tell my nation how it shall and shall not participate in organ harvesting. How Dare you presume to mandate to our nation that we must fund this abomination of good will to humanity! How dare you presume to take our nations funds to support your cause! What gives you the right to attack my nation and demand that we give up our hard earned monies and our body parts for your to give away willie nillie. Thank God NationStates does not have or allow war, Cause I would have pushed the big red button to have you nuked. or attacking my sovereignty I will have attacked yours. How dare you force your will upon my nation! This goes for the rest who vote for this abdominal resolution. How dare you presume to play God and pretend to be the saviors of humanity. Shame on you Sir!
I implore all to vote against this resolution!
Sincerely The Demons of Ujio :mad:

ALL Nations must support and fund this resolution. Its voluntary that the citizens have a choice to have their body parts taken so that some Alcoholic with liver disease can go destroy another one, or some methanphetamine addict can now have access to new parts after they effectively destroyed their own.

Uh...no. Your organs don't have to leave your borders. You don't have to accept other nations' organs. And for your information, alcoholism is a disease with a genetic predisposition that also has no cure, so if the person is a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks, I support that person's right to be placed on an organ recipient list.

Who do you presume to be to tell all UN sovereign Nations that we HAVE to participate in this Crock of an attempt to Force your liberal views on the rest of us.

Wow. Did you even read the text of the resolution before spewing vitriol as far and wide as you could? My goodness.

How dare you presume to tell my nation how it shall and shall not participate in organ harvesting. How Dare you presume to mandate to our nation that we must fund this abomination of good will to humanity!

Show me where, in the resolution, it forces nations to participate in the program. Then show me the part that details how individual nations are to participate. Don't worry, I won't wait long, because neither of those provisions are in the resolution.

Thank God NationStates does not have or allow war, Cause I would have pushed the big red button to have you nuked.

There's nothing quite like a well-reasoned argument based on rational objections to a proposal, is there? I mean, plenty of nations start nuclear wars over benign resolutions, right? Oh...maybe not.

This goes for the rest who vote for this abdominal resolution.

Unless you feel this resolution has to do with the stomach, I believe you were looking for the word "abominable".

I implore all to vote against this resolution!

Well, in the face of such logic as has been detailed...I'll be continuing to vote "yes".

Lord Jevo Telovar
Ambassador from Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

I find this resolution a complete Insult to my nation, in the fact that we HAVE to support funding and be apart of this scheme. Who do you presume to be to tell all UN sovereign Nations that we HAVE to participate in this Crock of an attempt to Force your liberal views on the rest of us.

UN nations are required to participate to some extent in all resolutions that are passed - the chances are that you won't be in favour of all of them. So if your country doesn't like being told what it should do, then you should leave the UN, because that is basically what the UN does!.

I think that since donations are voluntary, donors should have the right to decide where they go to.

I think that is the most abhorrent suggestion I have ever heard.

I think that is the most abhorrent suggestion I have ever heard.


I'm afraid I have to agree. People should have choices at times but in this situation the UN or some delegated committee should have a say in where the organs go (the UN has the most information on where they're needed)

[QUOTE=Krioval]Uh...no. Your organs don't have to leave your borders. You don't have to accept other nations' organs. And for your information, alcoholism is a disease with a genetic predisposition that also has no cure, so if the person is a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks, I support that person's right to be placed on an organ recipient list.

All of the arguments on this issue seem to be drifting two far away from the real problem.

This proposal is incredible compassonate, for that I give praise, but it is not a realistic proposal. An organ transport system of this size woud have a financially taxing affect that could force substantial tax increases for all Nations involved, and what affect on local economies would that have. You damage the economies and you will have more people out of work, out of health care coverage and the demand on this system will only increase. This system is a bandaid temporarily stemming the flow from a larger wound that needs correction and revitalizing. The focus is two large, health care needs to be addressed on these situations from the local government level.

Resolutions that help health care grow and provider cheaper services without government programs are what is needed. Big business providing better health coverage for their employees and boosting the economy to provide more jobs with health care allowing more people to slide from government funded social programs.
Socialist governments and public health care is not the answer, they only decline the level of care provided with underpayed and over taxed systems that operate as an extension of the government and not society. Healthier health care systems can work on organ failure procedures and alternatives to organic replacement with prosthetic derivative. Reseach and development needs expansion.

This larger global market for organs could also create a network of illegally obtained and blackmarket sold organs for out of market cost. How far is this proposal willing to go, and how much farther will all nations have to go after it dedicates itself. Too much, too soon.

There is no need to pass this resolution. I agree that most of the "Yay" votes are simply people that don't wish to vote against the feel good anthem that the resolution embodies. It is like voting against free school lunches or something. However the reason I vote no and oppose the entire thing is because the devil is in the details. I don't want people from any nation to have to throw their organs into some pool of donors from everywhere. Just because you give an organ doesn't mean you lose all say in where it goes. What if someone doesn't want to help a certain nation? It is their body and they should be able to decide. What if a nation doesn't want to assist another nation. It should be there choice to help. I think we should set up a department that handles the cooperation in this matter but it shouldn't be mandatory, it should be solely at the discretion of each individual nation to ask another nation for surplus organs.
I had all the same objections originally.
The author addressed them to my satisfaction in the resolution.

I suggest you read it closely.

Uh...no. Your organs don't have to leave your borders. You don't have to accept other nations' organs. And for your information, alcoholism is a disease with a genetic predisposition that also has no cure, so if the person is a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks, I support that person's right to be placed on an organ recipient list.

From the resolution it self
On Delegate Approval the UN will set up a World Organ Donor Center (UNWODC) to centralize and process all the worlds organ needs. This will ensure that if the precious organs needed by sick and dying persons in a Nation where there are a lack of Donor Organs, can be sourced in another Nation. Once ratified by the Delegates and members of the UN a select implementation committee shall be set up and charged with consultation, tendering and resourcing of all materials, experts and tradesmen and implementing the UNWODC.

Are You Blind Or just conveniently forgetting? and as far as alcoholism being a genetic disease no argument there from me. However it still takes the irresponsibility of a person to abuse alcohol for that to happen. Just Because its a disease doesn't excuse, or absolve the person from responsibility. Especially if they figure out that they've finally killed their liver and try to recover from Abusing the substance in the first place. Its still their fault that they were reckless and stupid knowing the dangers, and it's not somebody else's responsibility to fix it for them. I.E. Your Krioval



Show me where, in the resolution, it forces nations to participate in the program. Then show me the part that details how individual nations are to participate. Don't worry, I won't wait long, because neither of those provisions are in the resolution.

Just in case you missed it again.

Calling on the Nations of the UN to increase funding for both governmental and non governmental organizations charged with the implementation and administration of the UNWODC,
Funding for the UNWODC shall be sourced from the coffers of the International Community, By way of increased governmental funding and fund raisers held locally by the IRCO and other relief and charitable organizations.

Now please explain to me and the rest of the forum how that is not mandatory participation.



There's nothing quite like a well-reasoned argument based on rational objections to a proposal, is there? I mean, plenty of nations start nuclear wars over benign resolutions, right? Oh...maybe not.
I appreciate your willingness to under stand my frustration on the issue. This issue is hardly benign. This has massive repercussions on the entire UN community.



Unless you feel this resolution has to do with the stomach, I believe you were looking for the word "abominable".

Thanks for catching that, I missed it.

UN nations are required to participate to some extent in all resolutions that are passed - the chances are that you won't be in favor of all of them. So if your country doesn't like being told what it should do, then you should leave the UN, because that is basically what the UN does!.
And as far as just quitting the UN just be cause a Resolution it brought forward is diametrically opposed to what my and other nations believe is foolish. I'm sticking around to fight against this resolution, and to submit/support it's repeal shall this resolution be passed.

That's not the only reason I oppose this resolution. The UN is a conglomerate of nations who choose to play by the same rules. Passing this resolution makes the UN a Governing body over the nations who have voluntarily joined. No longer will the UN become an organization of Countries who want to better the world in which they live join to. The UN then becomes a governing body of all nations who have joined it. (Yes I'm aware that all nations in the nationstates UN have to abide by all resolutions as per game mechanics. Try not to get lost on that as a counter argument, as that is not the issue here)
That is also why I Implore all to oppose this Flawed Resolution
Respectfully: The Demons of Ujio

Do you really want to collectivize this and leave in the hands of UN bureaucrats? And those donor cards -- how long before they carry DNA chips, with a global DNA database, and off we go to world ID cards with frightening implications for civil liberties. I would not object to a mild version that simply facilitates state to state efforts, and serves as a VOLUNTARY clearing house for information on available organs. This is enough. Otherwise, no to global health care.

Do you really want to collectivize this and leave in the hands of UN bureaucrats? And those donor cards -- how long before they carry DNA chips, with a global DNA database, and off we go to world ID cards with frightening implications for civil liberties. I would not object to a mild version that simply facilitates state to state efforts, and serves as a VOLUNTARY clearing house for information on available organs. This is enough. Otherwise, no to global health care.

good point. Perhaps the resolution can be toned down a little to simply be a central house with information.

It seems to me that people seem to be unclear about many of the issues being argued about. I want to see if my understanding of the resolution as it stands or as it was intended is correct and get a few outstanding questions sorted out.


Firstly: Everyone from whatever country who is written up in the UNWODC books is at least eligible to receive organs, be they smoker or satanist, dictator or tramp or from a country with limited participation in the UNWODC system.


The decision of who receives the organs is decided by the UNWODC council based on the 4 criteria listed into the resolution itself. Now do countries or individuals have any form of additional veto over who receives their organs?


I presume countries in the scheme can still maintain a localised organ donation system involving people not carrying UNWODC donor cards?


Is there any financial remuneration for the countries carrying out organ harvesting operations or is it assumed that the system will balance out? If there is payment will this be a fixed rate or reflect the cost the operation actually cost?

Mmm I think that's it. Thanks.

Exactly, this resolution changes the scope of the UN, this resolutions changes the scope and power of the UN. DO we want a Global government that develops more and more power over the national governments. How far can we let this go. The UN should be a power that brings the nations together, not governs over them. This program would be better suited as stated above:

A program or Agency that tracks, trends, and collects information on the avaliabilty of matching quality donor transplants.

Regulates the transportations and delivery of possible and transplants.

Acts as a communication node between nations for the better deveopment of health services, not a body that controls it.

Exactly, this resolution changes the scope of the UN, this resolutions changes the scope and power of the UN. DO we want a Global government that develops more and more power over the national governments. How far can we let this go. The UN should be a power that brings the nations together, not governs over them. This program would be better suited as stated above:

A program or Agency that tracks, trends, and collects information on the avaliabilty of matching quality donor transplants.

Regulates the transportations and delivery of possible and transplants.

Acts as a communication node between nations for the better deveopment of health services, not a body that controls it.

This is exacly what the resolution should have been. Not the Plastic banana Good time rock & roller resolution that we have now.

my god this is madness!
do you have no respect for the rights of the individuals who want to be burried with all thier organs intact?

and what of the religions whos afterlife is only granted to those with all of their organs? surely you wouldnt spit in the faces of men with faith? how can you ban attrocities like genocide and yet let the post mortem mutilation of a countries people occur? organ donation should be voulentery and not otherwise.

I want to strongly urge anyone reading this forum to consider this one point. Do not pass this resolution simply because you are wrapped up in the warm fuzzy-there can be no pain and suffering in the world afterglow of a partially good idea. Pain, suffering, death, joy, liberty are all part of humanity. We have to make sure we are not playing god, this resolution has some good points. But please do not pass it in the absence of similar legislation. We should learn from this resolution, chop it down and from its ashes build a more realistic resolution that better serves the nations of this world instead of overwhelming and straining them.

my mistake it is voulentery but then what is the point of a voulentery resolution?

also my apologies for the double post

Yes, the donation of organs by individuals is voluntary.

However, according to UN law the funding of this program is NOT.

The financial drain on our Nations is beyond calculation.

Please vote this Resolution down.

no :mad:

Ok, fo some reason most of you are missing the point of the bill.

Original Idea: Simply to save lives. The UNWODC aims to, (i)Prevent wastage of Donor Organs by giving the organs the greatest scope to find a close match. (ii) Speed up the process by shipping the organs rather than the patients, (iii) Provide in the fairest possible way the oppertunity for a life saving Transplant.

Let me clarify.
1, The UNWODC is a facility that is given a database of Patients who need a transplant. It issues Donor Cards in an attempt to increase awareness to the populations of Nations in participation. It does not sell organs as the organs are never the Property of the UNWODC. The Organs are donated freely by the death of an individual who was carrying a card at the time of their demise. The UNWODC is fed the Information. The numbers are crunched by its super computer giving a reply quickly. The reply, which is communicated directly, details who the recipient is, where the Medical facility is in which the transplant is to be done and the fastest possible way to get the organ there.
2, the UNWODC simultainiously informs the patient, telling Him/Her to get to the Medical facility Immediatly and also the facility where the transplant will be done so that they can be ready to begin as soon as the organs arrive.
3,Funding for the operations is already in place. National governments policy on health apply, as they do now. This will remain unchanged.
4, Any individual may carry a card, However if the donor dies in a nation where the Government is not a member or has outlawed the practice of organ donation and harvesting, the donor is subject to that Jurisdiction.
5, If a Nation dissagrees with the UNWODC ideals it can opt out of distributing donor cards.

The members who would deny this bill have many various reasons to try to block it. I have Proposed this bill in good faith and i stand by the ideals and truths of the UNWODC.

Speed and efficiency saves lives.

the Rogue Nation of Resistancia supports this proposal, and will join, but on the subject of organ donation cards, we already have that in place, so having duplicated cards is a waste of money. i agree that nations should have this kind of system in place, as in volentary cards or noted on vehicle operation licences in place if they are donors, but the UNWODC should only be in place for nations that dont have existing measures. it is far easier to note on existing paper work if an individual will allow their organs to be sent outside of the nation than it is to impliment a system that doubles the paperwork

the Rogue Nation of Resistancia supports this proposal, and will join, but on the subject of organ donation cards, we already have that in place, so having duplicated cards is a waste of money. i agree that nations should have this kind of system in place, as in volentary cards or noted on vehicle operation licences in place if they are donors, but the UNWODC should only be in place for nations that dont have existing measures. it is far easier to note on existing paper work if an individual will allow their organs to be sent outside of the nation than it is to impliment a system that doubles the paperwork

The new system aims to have little or no paperwork above the paperwork already done. In existing systems all patients are examined and registered on a waiting list. The UNWODC is to be heavily computerised thus removing the issues of paperwork. Medical practitioners would only have to file that they followed the instructions of the UNWODC and the recipient Medical team would document the resulting transplant and weither it was successful or not.

Venerable libertarians,

Explain to me how this database and the other aspects of you resolution get paid. I just feel you need to call this as it is. A mandatory tax hike on UN member nations for a feel good operation. Address why should poorer nations be foced into a program that they can't afford.

I am calling you out. Admit that this is another mandatory tax program and drop the voluntary act.

There are many of us out here that are not welfare "sheep", and can think for ourselves.


President Kimo

Explain to me how this database and the other aspects of you resolution get paid. I just feel you need to call this as it is. A mandatory tax hike on UN member nations for a feel good operation. Address why should poorer nations be foced into a program that they can't afford.

President Kimo,
With all due respect, there has to be funding for such an outing. You are calling out nothing but the obvious. There is a call for funds clearly marked on the proposal. It is anticipated that the initial set up of the UNWODC will be expensive, with regard to its heavy reliance on IT based administration and communication. How ever the running costs of such an organisation are miniscule compared to the massive war and defense budgets most nations fund with out question.
Funding is also to be sought by NGO's and relief organisations and would make up a major part of the Fund for the running costs of the UNWODC. Compashionate and economicaly strong nations such as the Venerable Libertarians would have no problems raising funds for such a noble venture, and we are not alone in this.

Krioval finds that a large amount of opposition to this resolution centers around individual people's reluctance to fund UN mandates in general. This distresses our great nation, which despite a strong tradition of encouraging private enterprise, feels that the occasional project for social betterment deserves our attention and merits the occasional kerotar in funding. We consider it to be the "admission price" of membership in this multinational organization, which we do recognize as also being voluntary.

If you don't want to pay a little to help your, and all other member nations, please leave. Now.

If you don't want to pay a little to help your, and all other member nations, please leave. Now.
Or vote against. Their call, Aragan, not yours. That's what a representative democracy does, y'know.

Bastetania supports this proposal. It appears there is still free choice as to whether or not a nation/ state can participate in this.

I wasn't my region's delegate when this was discussed, so I'll take it as it's written. You've already got my nation's vote. The region's vote depends on how many, if any, inhabitants take the trouble to ear-bash me on the topic.

Two general points, though.

I feel uneasy about ideas that depend on a reasonably efficient computer system. (Murphy's Law variant: the more you need something to work, the more likely it is to not work.)

I understand that resolutions are sometimes more a statement of intent than a plan for immediate action. But I'd like to see some idea of what would happen when a signatory nation or region has an emergency or natural disaster. (I'd assume that the UNWODC would just say, "Do what you need to do, we'll help where we can," but reactions vary.)

I'm afraid I have to agree. People should have choices at times but in this situation the UN or some delegated committee should have a say in where the organs go (the UN has the most information on where they're needed)

Well, donation is strictly voluntary in my nation. If the people are given less freedom to decide where the donations go, then it necessarily follows that less people will donate. Now, my citizens are taught not to discriminate by race/creed/color etc, but certainly I allow them the right to choose.

If you don't want to pay a little to help your, and all other member nations, please leave. Now.

Where does it all end? I have foster children in my nation. Are you going to let them suffer? Why don't we pass a Lollipops and Puppies resolution where it mandates that the UN provides Lollipops and Puppies to every child in a member state?

The sentiment is fine in this resolution but I don't want to pay for it because these things are pie-in-the-sky nonsense and it is a small step towards the UN being the supreme authority on matters and not the individual governments. The UN isn't a world government or at least it shouldn't be.

Utopiates has legislation pending where households will have a one child policy. Seconldy, if it pans out right, we'll be selling those additional children to other nations(to be raised of course ;) )

One child per family should just about do it I think. Extraneous ones can be sold to other countries."

This will most likely cut into our revenues in our sale of "adopted" children.

Furthermore

2, Life expectancy of the patient, those in mortal danger prioritised,

4, All patients shall be treated equally and no patients shall get priority based on wealth or status

I can in no way approve to save the life of a delinquent child in some of your states when possibly one of my scholars would be better off with it.

Is it worth it to save a 'child' who has a criminal record but will live 30 years over a PhD who is on the leading edge of his field and could possibly find the cure to numerous diseases but only to be passed up because his life will only be 20 years???

The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis so that on death donors organs can be harvested on finding the card

Should this resolution pass Utopiates will ensure that none of it's people sign these cards.

Utopiates must place it's best interests before all other member states, despite #1

1, Closest tissue and blood type match and suitability for transplant,

Corrupt governments, organizations and people will most likely find the 'most suitable' members in their home states in escence stealing organs.

That a nation votes against this resolution because it cuts into their child-selling revenues seems only to be a strong reason to continue to support the resolution as written.

this proposal severely limits government. welfare should be entirely banned because of it's horrible affect on a country. if someone isn't going to work for they country then they deserve not to get food. if someone doesn't agree with the country, then move. if someone is physically unable to do any physical work, they can get a job as a teacher or scientist. if someone is unable to do any of those then they should be killed.

this proposal severely limits government. welfare should be entirely banned because of it's horrible affect on a country. if someone isn't going to work for they country then they deserve not to get food. if someone doesn't agree with the country, then move. if someone is physically unable to do any physical work, they can get a job as a teacher or scientist. if someone is unable to do any of those then they should be killed.

How in the name of The Lords did we get from organ donation to someone not getting food?

Utopiates has legislation pending where households will have a one child policy. Seconldy, if it pans out right, we'll be selling those additional children to other nations(to be raised of course )


Utopiates must place it's best interests before all other member states, despite #1
:( It saddens me. The pure greed of A UN Member. Shouldnt this nation be sanctioned for its flagrant disregard for Human rights. Selling children, What ever next?

if someone is physically unable to do any physical work, they can get a job as a teacher or scientist. if someone is unable to do any of those then they should be killed.

This is outragious! what would you do with mentally handicapped people and people with physical dissabilities?

:( It saddens me. The pure greed of A UN Member. Shouldnt this nation be sanctioned for its flagrant disregard for Human rights. Selling children, What ever next?
I say a Pretenama Panel is in order.

It appears Utopiates is in breach of the following resolutions....

Resolution #06, End Slavery, Article 5, The outlawing of the sellingg and purchasing of people.
Resolution #25, The Child protection Act, Article 3.2.
Resolution #26, The Universal Bill of Rights, Article 4.
Resolution #68, Ban trafficing of Persons.
Resolution #89, Rights of Indigenous peoples, Article 10.

I say J'accuse!

However as he is a relatively new member and may not have been aware....
No! Pretenama it is.
I second Asshelmetta's Suggestion.

Not to sound like a moderator (cause I am not one nor do I play one in the west end) but I think this is getting just a little bit off topic here :}

I honestly can't believe that there is a ratio of 3:1 FOR this resolution which is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to any country who signs up for it.

At least in communism you have "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and that didn't even work. In this system, being entirely voluntary, you have something like "from each according to his natural spirit of generosity to each according to his needs". How is that going to work?

At first the system might work out- people will sign up in good faith and you might even get an increase in organ donors. However it won't take people long to realise that some countries will be making a net gain and some a net loss in organs from their countries - in effect this is how the UNWODC works (hence the talk of surpluses). Those making a net loss will start to reassess their involvement in the UNWODC.

Those who are still able to meet their organ needs will wonder why they are performing thousands of harvesting operations just to send those organs abroad for no benefit. So either the government will opt out of the system or the people will stop signing up as UNWODC donors in order to keep their taxes lower.

Those who are not able to meet their local organ needs but are still suffering a net loss of organs overseas will be forced to opt out of the system to ensure that their own organ needs are met and to prevent a huge leap in their mortality rates.

This process will be ongoing - as more "net losers" opt out, the financial and human strain on those remaining in the UNWODC will continue to grow as the burden previously taken up by those who have opted out is redistributed.
The less generous and more self-interested a nation is the more it stands to benefit.

Now does this seem like an unreasonable analysis?

I beg countries for the sake of their people to oppose this resolution.

Now does this seem like an unreasonable analysis?

Why yes, yes it does seem unreasonable.

In what way? Do you think that people will stay in a system that gets their own people killed? Or costs them money for no benefit?
I'm not sure you can just say that my arguments are unreasonable or don't hold water - you might actually have to at least try to refute them rather than just blindly following whatever resolution is proposed simply because of the feel-good factor.

Resolution #06, End Slavery, Article 5, The outlawing of the sellingg and purchasing of people.
Resolution #25, The Child protection Act, Article 3.2.
Resolution #26, The Universal Bill of Rights, Article 4.
Resolution #68, Ban trafficing of Persons.
Resolution #89, Rights of Indigenous peoples, Article 10.


The 'sale price' is just a bunch of words. This bill is selling organs. Just because the 'cost' is in the administration. If you believe I'm 'selling people' you're selling organs and would be just as bad.

unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.
measures to ensure that the minor is protected against all forms of discrimination

As such Utopiates has passed legislation, under law all persons over the age of 3 have been given the rights of NORMAL people and are no longer oppressed and are considered the age of majority, we don't discriminate.

minor from all forms of.... neglect or negligent treatment,
the best interests of the minor shall be a primary consideration.

All children that are neglected will be offered to neighbouring nations where they can find better homes.

What other neighbouring nations do with their adopted children is upto them.

All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Can your members under the age of 18 vote or drink? No, I believe it is you who is oppressing your 'young' as stated above my minors are under the age of 3 all other members of society have been given the rights as all other individuals in the state.

against their will

All youth that do offer themselves to go to a better home in a neighbouring state do so on their own free will..

Indigenous children have the right to all levels & forums of education, and if desired, educational institutions should develop curriculum suitable to the needs & consistent with their culture

Isn't it good for children to learn about other cultures?? I mean we don't want to be raising future Adolphs..

At first the system might work out- people will sign up in good faith and you might even get an increase in organ donors. However it won't take people long to realise that some countries will be making a net gain and some a net loss in organs from their countries - in effect this is how the UNWODC works (hence the talk of surpluses). Those making a net loss will start to reassess their involvement in the UNWODC.


But if they are making a net loss for one year, the next year there might be a huge disaster, and they suddenly need a large influx of organs. So it will all balance out.

Most things balance out over a long enough period of time, even if it doesn't over a shorter period.

Those who are still able to meet their organ needs will wonder why they are performing thousands of harvesting operations just to send those organs abroad for no benefit. So either the government will opt out of the system or the people will stop signing up as UNWODC donors in order to keep their taxes lower.

The Organs, if enough people are there, dead and donating, should be harvested and clearly the benifit lies with the reciever. Are you that insular as to just look to your own people? Theres a big bad world out there. and its inhabited with people, like you and me.

what about the forgery of organ cards? A simple signature wont do. They could be easily slipped into the pocket of a dead body against what the person wanted...

what about the forgery of organ cards? A simple signature wont do. They could be easily slipped into the pocket of a dead body against what the person wanted...

I think that is a general failing of any organ donation system, not just this one. But honestly? I don't think it is that serious a problem. If a government is going to be corrupt enough to do that, then they are probably going to be doing a lot worse.

But if they are making a net loss for one year, the next year there might be a huge disaster, and they suddenly need a large influx of organs. So it will all balance out.

Most things balance out over a long enough period of time, even if it doesn't over a shorter period.

Sadly individual natural disasters will have an almost imperceptible effect on the trends of world transplant rates so relying on them to 'balance' the system might not be ideal.

Furthermore while some systems will balance out over time, even a cursory examination would tell you that this is not going to be the case with UNWODC. Because organ donation is entirely voluntary but who receives organs is almost entirely unregulated, there are going to be inequalities in levels of donation. Accordingly there will be inequalities in loss/gain rates in individual countries. This will never change because there is no control over donation rates.

The only way a country can protect against a net loss of organs is by ensuring that they donate fewer organs to the system to be sent overseas. This is the only way the system will 'balance out'.

The Organs, if enough people are there, dead and donating, should be harvested and clearly the benifit lies with the reciever. Are you that insular as to just look to your own people? Theres a big bad world out there. and its inhabited with people, like you and me.

I agree in principle that if countries have a dearth of available organ donors they should be able to try to source them from abroad. I merely hold that the system proposed is entirely unworkable.

You ask if I look only to my people? If by carrying out thousands of operations for other countries I waste millions and millions off my health budget then of course I will look to my people, as they would expect me to.

As noble as the intention might be, those millions I would be wasting could cost my country the lives of thousands of innocents from having to divert funding from anti-malarials, hospital cleanliness, anti-biotics, drugs for alzheimers, heart conditions etc. , not to mention that a large number of well trained professionals would be tied up in this white elephant and prevented from doing their job, which is saving lives.

This is my position and would be the position of any compassionate leader- my people come first. So similar minded countries will opt out and those remaining in the system will find the burden on them increased when they go.

Again I beg to oppose.

You ask if I look only to my people? If by carrying out thousands of operations for other countries I waste millions and millions off my health budget then of course I will look to my people, as they would expect me to.

What operations? the organs are harvested E.G. removed in the mortuary, in a procedure akin to a post mortem. the Operations are carried out in the recieving patients nation, thus the bearing of opertional costs and recovery costs are on the recipients own nation.
QED!

Sadly individual natural disasters will have an almost imperceptible effect on the trends of world transplant rates so relying on them to 'balance' the system might not be ideal.

Furthermore while some systems will balance out over time, even a cursory examination would tell you that this is not going to be the case with UNWODC. Because organ donation is entirely voluntary but who receives organs is almost entirely unregulated, there are going to be inequalities in levels of donation. Accordingly there will be inequalities in loss/gain rates in individual countries. This will never change because there is no control over donation rates.

The only way a country can protect against a net loss of organs is by ensuring that they donate fewer organs to the system to be sent overseas. This is the only way the system will 'balance out'.



I agree in principle that if countries have a dearth of available organ donors they should be able to try to source them from abroad. I merely hold that the system proposed is entirely unworkable.

You ask if I look only to my people? If by carrying out thousands of operations for other countries I waste millions and millions off my health budget then of course I will look to my people, as they would expect me to.

As noble as the intention might be, those millions I would be wasting could cost my country the lives of thousands of innocents from having to divert funding from anti-malarials, hospital cleanliness, anti-biotics, drugs for alzheimers, heart conditions etc. , not to mention that a large number of well trained professionals would be tied up in this white elephant and prevented from doing their job, which is saving lives.

This is my position and would be the position of any compassionate leader- my people come first. So similar minded countries will opt out and those remaining in the system will find the burden on them increased when they go.

Again I beg to oppose.
I agree completely. I will make sure the people of my own nation are doing fine before I spend any money to help other nations. Many people who oppose the war in Iraq say that the money spent there should have been spent here to help our education system and such. Then they go and say we should pass UN resolutions that would send aid to countries in Africa. What happened to our own education system? I will not hold a double standard like this.

Also, organs are only good up to a few hours after being harvested. No country should have a large supply of them at hand unless they are killing people to keep a fresh supply of lving organs, with tissues that have yet to decay. Finally, it seems very unlikly to me that we would be able to transport an organ quickly enough from one nation to another. Also, it is financially irresponsible to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars sending a single organ across nations in order to save a life, when many of the nations voting for this amendment have income tax rates of 50% or more. Your people must be living in poverty at such high tax levels.

Also, it is financially irresponsible to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars sending a single organ across nations in order to save a life, when many of the nations voting for this amendment have income tax rates of 50% or more. Your people must be living in poverty at such high tax levels.
OOC. this is actually done in real life, As it stands A patient from Kerry in the Republic of ireland can be called to a hospital in Newcastle in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. There is an agreement between these two RL nations to share donor organs and patients are routeenly brought by military transport to the hospitals from remote locations.


IC. It is a falacy that organs will not last long distances. If properly packed the organs can last up to 3 days and still arrive in a workable state and could go longer but for the regulations regarding the conditions of donor organs. The Ice packing keeping the organs fresh in transport, can actually damage organs due to crystalisation in the flesh. You will know this condition in its more common term, "frost bite" and Specialists have taken measures to reduce the effects of this in cases where the Organs will have to travel longer distances.

This phrase is problematic: "The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis..."

The reason why is that "shall issue" and "to be signed" do not imply voluntary effort.

If this is truly a voluntary effort, i.e. one that is not done under compunction or duresss, then citizens should have the OPTION of requesting a card that will be made available to them upon their request at any governmental office.

If the language/wording were changed to reflect that individual rights would not be violated, e.g. "The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations only upon their request...", I would be more inclined to favor it.

However, how much would this effort cost, and who would pay for it?

That is strictly your opinion, and I disagree with it.

Yes but what are your warrents for disagreeing with it? I do not like this idea as well but I have reasons:

I am a hard worker. I live life to the fullest and I do not let life pass me by. I am not saying that I would do this more so than one of my region-mates, but I would say that I should have more right to an organ than a doped up homeless man; no matter my condition over his. Moreover, I think that there is an inherent flaw in this resolution. The ONLY thing that this does is to provide the means for delivering these overstock organs to the international community. (If it does not do this please point out to me what it does). Seeing as it does not force anything, you cannot do anything but provide means. The problem with this is that the legislation fails to show how it will do this. No one can say FOR SURE how it will provide for transportation, funds, and regulations. Because I cannot endorse a vague concept that does not properly accomplish the ONLY thing it set out to do, I firmley negate this faulty resolution.

OOC. this is actually done in real life, As it stands A patient from Kerry in the Republic of ireland can be called to a hospital in Newcastle in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. There is an agreement between these two RL nations to share donor organs and patients are routeenly brought by military transport to the hospitals from remote locations.


IC. It is a falacy that organs will not last long distances. If properly packed the organs can last up to 3 days and still arrive in a workable state and could go longer but for the regulations regarding the conditions of donor organs. The Ice packing keeping the organs fresh in transport, can actually damage organs due to crystalisation in the flesh. You will know this condition in its more common term, "frost bite" and Specialists have taken measures to reduce the effects of this in cases where the Organs will have to travel longer distances.

We have found our Liquid Ice medical packing material solves this very handilly. It keeps at a frigid 0.3 C for several hours, just above freezing. As such, ice crystals do not form.

After this passes, Vastiva will put the formula for Liquid Ice into the UN database for use in UNWODC operations, with only a slight fee charged for the use of such and signatory to acceptance of our patent.

What operations? the organs are harvested E.G. removed in the mortuary, in a procedure akin to a post mortem. the Operations are carried out in the recieving patients nation, thus the bearing of opertional costs and recovery costs are on the recipients own nation.
QED!

Sorry I must have used the wrong word; what's the word I'm looking for - when trained medical professionals work on a human body to have some effect on it's internal workings?
I think you're living in a world of make-believe.

Whether you want to call organ harvesting operations operations or not, the fact remains that they will have a ruinous effect on the finances of the country which carries them out without any recompense. You can't rely on cack-handed amateurs to perform these operations- it is important that they are carried out quickly and efficiently, without any damage to the organs and with some knowledge of how they will be reattatched in the body of the recipient. You can either train and pay for (at great expense) a new group of surgeons to perform these operations or use your pre-existing surgeons and accept that many other operations will be by necessity ignored.

This is a noble resolution, but the fulfillment of it will cause a major hinderance. Consider this: organs have a very short span of time in order for the transplant to be successful. In order for this resolution to work as intended, you would need supersonic planes waiting for the "call" to transport an organ transplant between countries. Each country and each area would have to have a fleet of these vehicles in order to meet the necessary needs of shipping the organs around the world. It just doesn't sound feasible to me. The monetary costs would just be to great. But who am I kidding? This resolution will pass anyways because of its intentions of nobility. Just for the record, I am against it.

Congratulations on passage of UNWODC!

A worthy addition to the roster of NSUN Resolutions, this will make the world a better place.

Congratulations on passage of UNWODC!

A worthy addition to the roster of NSUN Resolutions, this will make the world a better place.


You've got to be joking. What on earth would persuade you that this system is even going to work let alone provide any additional benefit above and beyond the tried and tested method of local sourcing for organ donors?

I'd like to offer congratulations to the stupidity of people in groups, who dazzled by the emotive language of the initial proposal have now compelled all NSUN members to bankroll a system that will prove a detriment to any country that signs up to it.

I'd like to offer congratulations to the stupidity of people in groups, who dazzled by the emotive language of the initial proposal have now compelled all NSUN members to bankroll a system that will prove a detriment to any country that signs up to it.
Welcome to the UN.:D

I agree with my esteemed colleague quoted below.


You've got to be joking. What on earth would persuade you that this system is even going to work let alone provide any additional benefit above and beyond the tried and tested method of local sourcing for organ donors?

I'd like to offer congratulations to the stupidity of people in groups, who dazzled by the emotive language of the initial proposal have now compelled all NSUN members to bankroll a system that will prove a detriment to any country that signs up to it.

Let's just wait and see what effect the gnomes impose on our countries before we get all hyperbolic, shall we?

There'll always be plenty of time for your recall effort.

I might point out that if you'd checked up on this forum while the proposal was being worked on, you could have offered constructive criticism then. Now all you can do is start working on a repeal proposal.

Mmm I don't think I was being hyperbolic, well maybe a little but even so I was just trying to make a point.

Despite what the reality of the system might be I have no doubt that the actual in-game effect of this proposal will not be as negative as the reality. This does not change my views of the system which I still believe will not work.

OOC: given that the proposal will pass anyway could you tell me OOC if you at least see what I've been trying to get at? That the voluntary donations of organs but the random allocation of recipients will cause a system where the best possible action for a nation is to opt out of the UNWODC?

3, Distance and infrastructure resulting in the delivery of transplantable organs,

Doesn't this make it most likely that organs will be used in the country of the donor? And don't the other criteria mean that the people who need it most and will benefit the most will get priority?

Why would any country be opposed if excess organs help people in other countries?

I disagree that the allocation is random. I do not agree that the best course of action for any nation would be to opt out.

This is a noble resolution, but the fulfillment of it will cause a major hinderance. Consider this: organs have a very short span of time in order for the transplant to be successful. In order for this resolution to work as intended, you would need supersonic planes waiting for the "call" to transport an organ transplant between countries. Each country and each area would have to have a fleet of these vehicles in order to meet the necessary needs of shipping the organs around the world. It just doesn't sound feasible to me. The monetary costs would just be to great. But who am I kidding? This resolution will pass anyways because of its intentions of nobility. Just for the record, I am against it. Hey, is it just me or have you not even bothered to read the previous posts in this thread. look for the bit that says ITS A FALACY. Dealt with and shot down.

This phrase is problematic: "The UNWODC shall issue Donor Cards to the peoples of all Nations to be signed on a voluntary basis..." The reason why is that "shall issue" and "to be signed" do not imply voluntary effort.
People get so hung up on language, so let me elaborate... The UNWODC Shall ( yes we will issue them regardless who wants them. Form an orderly que. please take a card and sign it, carry it on your person 24/7) issue donor cards to be signed on a voluntary ( e.g. only if it pleases you to do so) bases.


The UNWODC is enacted, and i am going to celebrate by going to bed and catching up on some lost sleep. lol

Thanks to all for your contributions and to Asshelmetta and Krioval for defending the Proposal in its hour of need.

Thank you to the 11,029 votes which put the UNWODC in the Resolution book.

Ladies and gentlemen,
I thank you and Goodnight!

President Murphy,
High Consul to the Venerable Libertarians,
President of the Region of the Realm of Hibernia.

Doesn't this make it most likely that organs will be used in the country of the donor? And don't the other criteria mean that the people who need it most and will benefit the most will get priority?

Why would any country be opposed if excess organs help people in other countries?

I disagree that the allocation is random. I do not agree that the best course of action for any nation would be to opt out.

Nope? You're not going to budge at all? Even now that the resolution is passed? You don't see how countries can very easily sponge off the system by giving most of their organs to state donation systems while claiming as many organs as possible from UNWODC? And that other countries are going to realise that and reduce their donations to match?

Never mind - it was worth a try. There are none so blind as those who will not see, or however the saying goes.
Maybe I will take your suggestion and go for a repeal.... :)

I missed part of your argument, I see.
You're asserting it's possible for a nationstate to have an internal-only organ donation system and still be part of UNWODC?

Hadn't thought of that.

I re-read the resolution just to make sure. I don't believe what you're positing is possible.

I don't believe it allows for UN nationstates to have their own organ donor network separate from UNWODC.

Nope? You're not going to budge at all? Even now that the resolution is passed? You don't see how countries can very easily sponge off the system by giving most of their organs to state donation systems while claiming as many organs as possible from UNWODC? And that other countries are going to realise that and reduce their donations to match?

Ok if your nation opts in to the UNWODC it has then only one national donor body, The UNWODC.

Thats it off to my bed! Night all.

Just send insulated pre-paid shipping containers and plenty of ice. Certain 'political activists' in my country are very willing to donate organs, Our secret police can get you all you need. :D


P.S. We want cash up front. :)

I re-read the resolution just to make sure. I don't believe what you're positing is possible.

I don't believe it allows for UN nationstates to have their own organ donor network separate from UNWODC.

I don't think the proposal as written says anything about dissolving preexisting donation networks, but anyway even if you do prevent nations from conducting their own transplants all that changes is that the countries who you are relying on to give up their surpluses have another reason to opt out in addition to the financial one. Under this system you would actively deny them the right to ensure that their own citizens can be guaranteed organs if they need them no matter how easily they achieved this before UNWODC.
But as I said earlier, the proposition has passed any way and this won't have any in game effect so it is purely academic.

I don't think the proposal as written says anything about dissolving preexisting donation networks, but anyway even if you do prevent nations from conducting their own transplants all that changes is that the countries who you are relying on to give up their surpluses have another reason to opt out in addition to the financial one. Under this system you would actively deny them the right to ensure that their own citizens can be guaranteed organs if they need them no matter how easily they achieved this before UNWODC.
But as I said earlier, the proposition has passed any way and this won't have any in game effect so it is purely academic.
It's all purely academic. That's what makes debating it so fun!

1. I didn't see any opt-out provision in this resolution for UN members.

2. I can't imagine that 0.1% (40 nationstates) would leave NSUN over this. Look at the selection criteria again - the majority of organs within a nationstate are going to go to other people in that nationstate. On the other hand, in those cases where there aren't enough livers to go around, this resolution might save some lives in your nationstate.

Wow. My taxes went up four percent... and nothing else happened.

However, Vastiva is now enjoying significant royalties from the use of and export of our Liquid Ice product, particularly to smaller nations, which do not have the ability to manufacture the complex molecules used - but which we are most happy to supply at a "slight fee".

We thank the UN for enriching our coffers at no significant cost to us.



*the words "slight fee" in Vastivan are a hairsbreadth from the words for "highway robbery".

My taxes only went up to 2%.
Did I effectively have a negative tax rate before?

Possibly. A puppet of ours passed four "will raise taxes" issues in a row - and still had "income tax is unknown" afterwards.

By itself, this frightened us, as we wondered what on earth they were using to fund the issues. Apparently "red tape" is a significant barter instrument.

I purposely did not make any decisions in my nation to see what rise there would be in taxation. The rise mirrored that of Asshelmetta's 2% hike.
Its a small price to pay for this noble and good Organisation.

I have just recieved a telegram from the Compliance Ministry that my Nation, The Holy Empire of Drakonic Symbiosis, is required to change its regulations to become compliant with this new law. I need to know what needs to be done to make sure that I do so.

I need to know what needs to be done to make sure that I do so.
It's automatic. The UN Gnomes sneak into everyone's legal repository and quickly and quietly adjust any laws so that they match the UN's requirements. They do it all in one night, just like Santa Claus!



[OOC] your nation stats have already been adjusted. That's all there is to it.

thanks! That's all I needed 2 know

Well i guess that wraps it up. Thank you all for your help, suggestions, and to all those that voted both for and against the UNWODC.
The UN may be slow to move, akin to a giant tortoise, But the voting shows its the most democratic part of all the Nationstates world.


See you in the Forums,
President Murphy,
Venerable Libertarians,
The Realm of Hibernia.