NationStates Jolt Archive

The last time we posted this it did not make quorum.

This time we have drafted after some criticism, and we more or less covered all issues that we brought up by the UN Delegates in this forum.

Here it is:

The United Nations,

DESIRING to reduce unnecessary loss of life,

NOTICING the number of lives lost due to disease,

STATING that many could be prevented from simple vaccinations,

UNDERSTANDING that not everyone can afford to have vaccinations,

THUS HEREBY PROCLAIMING that the following vaccinations must be provided free of charge in all hospitals:

1. Small Pox
2. Measles
3. Mumps
4. Typhoid
5. Rubella
6. Tetanus
7. Polio
8. Tuberculosis (TB)
9. Diphtheria
10. Whooping cough (pertussis)
11. Hib (causes cerebrospinal meningitis)
12. Meningitis B and C
13. Hepatitis A, B, C, D-agent, E, F and G.
14. Cholera
15. Influenza
16. Rabies
17. Yellow Fever

FURTHER stating that vaccines, which include diseases, will have them in a sufficiently weakened level or a dead state that will make them harmless.

AND FURTHER PROCLAIMING that treatment for the following uncurable diseases become mandatory in all hospitals:

1. HIV
2. AIDS
3. Malaria
4. Cancer

BELIEVING that this will reduce national death rates, especially infant mortality rates,

FURTHERMORE BELIEVING that if these laws are enacted, public health care standards will increase globally.

HOWEVER, stating that citizens of each respective country have the right not to be given vaccinations or treatment due to beliefs, health risks or religion.

----------------------------------

If you could please leave your opinion on whether it is sound or not would be great, and if you laumch any criticisms, please make sure they are constructive.

I agree with this proposal very much. It is a very good basis to stop the traveling of disease. It is NOT to specific to be national and also is so much more efficent on the international level because such disease will spread to other countries and if one nation does not take care of it's people it is going to have an effect on lots of others.

The last time we posted this it did not make quorum.

I knew I've seen this before

This time we have drafted after some criticism, and we more or less covered all issues that we brought up by the UN Delegates in this forum.

Here it is:

Hmm....do you have the link to your old thread?

The United Nations,

DESIRING to reduce unnecessary loss of life,

NOTICING the number of lives lost due to disease,

STATING that many could be prevented from simple vaccinations,

UNDERSTANDING that not everyone can afford to have vaccinations,

THUS HEREBY PROCLAIMING that the following vaccinations must be provided free of charge in all hospitals:

1. Small Pox
2. Measles
3. Mumps
4. Typhoid
5. Rubella
6. Tetanus
7. Polio
8. Tuberculosis (TB)
9. Diphtheria
10. Whooping cough (pertussis)
11. Hib (causes cerebrospinal meningitis)
12. Meningitis B and C
13. Hepatitis A, B, C, D-agent, E, F and G.
14. Cholera
15. Influenza
16. Rabies
17. Yellow Fever

FURTHER stating that vaccines, which include diseases, will have them in a sufficiently weakened level or a dead state that will make them harmless.

AND FURTHER PROCLAIMING that treatment for the following uncurable diseases become mandatory in all hospitals:

1. HIV
2. AIDS
3. Malaria
4. Cancer

BELIEVING that this will reduce national death rates, especially infant mortality rates,

FURTHERMORE BELIEVING that if these laws are enacted, public health care standards will increase globally.

HOWEVER, stating that citizens of each respective country have the right not to be given vaccinations or treatment due to beliefs, health risks or religion.

1) I dislike the term uncurable. With nations having tech levels from stone age to intergalactic empires, saying that those diseases are uncurable just seems a bit..... tech-specific.
2) Cancer is not, today, uncurable. SOME forms of cancer are uncurable. (well.....I suppose the better argument is the reverse - some forms forms of cancer are curable)
3) HIV is not a disease. HIV infection you could argue
4) The entire thing strikes me as a real life reference. I would seriously grab a legality check.

Honestly, I'd say scrap it and change your topic slightly. With the way the UN is designed, I'd say it would be better off creating a "WHO" variant that would decide what vaccines are and aren't mandatory - and mandating that they be given free of charge.

The term (to be slightly picky) is incurable.

I also don't like the mandate that all hospitals MUST be equipped to treat HIV/AIDS, Cancer, and Malaria. Not even in Norderia (with some damn fine hospitals) does every single hospital have a cancer ward. Those kinds of treatment centers are expensive, and it's asking just a bit much to demand that they're put in place in every hospital. Beyond that, some hospitals specialize in cancer treatment alone. There's no reason that those should be forced to take on other duties as well.

I'm not a medical professional, so someone with an eye toward that kind of thing oughta to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the clause that states that the substances in vaccinations have to be dead enough to be safe is unnecessary. Isn't that what the vaccination means? Injecting weak or dead organisms into the body to allow the body to produce antibodies? If they aren't dead enough, it's not a vaccine that the person is being injected with, it's the disease itself, right? That's my impression, I don't know if it's true or not.

The term (to be slightly picky) Injecting weak or dead organisms into the body to allow the body to produce antibodies? If they aren't dead enough, it's not a vaccine that the person is being injected with, it's the disease itself, right? That's my impression, I don't know if it's true or not.We are not medical but do know that vaccines for some current diseases create problems as not everyone can take them.. Also those who get them later due to even this dead virus or whatever in their system are not able to donate blood or organs due to fact they were vacinated..

13. Hepatitis A, B, C, D-agent, E, F and G.
This one is one know for sure falls under this as I have not since 1997 been able to donate blood because I was vaccinated for Hepatitis in 1995. As this is blood born and even in a weak state it could be a problem for somebody getting my blood who has low white blood cell count to start with as well as low blood period. I was required to get vaccinated because worked in a hospital and needed to be protected. Also this is one that they want children vaccinated with before they enter school but in so doing are making future blood supplies useless.

Also believe they have something effective for Malaria.. as spent a few Wednesday evenings in Viet Nam in the reading room after taking the pills to prevent it so see no reason it should not be included in the upper part rather than lower part with cancer and HIV.

AS for 12. Meningitis B and CUnless doctors in a nation are trained in detection of this one can simply see it as something else prescribe two aspirn and send patient home. Not finding it to be this until the person is dead... and folks close to deceased were exposed to it. As this is the only one I had to go get tested for because they learned later that the person I put in morgue had it, two days after they die... In working in a hospital for eleven years. So more than a vaccine is needed to prevent the spread of these diseases.

Here also we must consider that not all members are effected by these diseases in the same way.. thus to require them to stock supplies of these vaccines would be a waste of funds and time. Nations need to be allowed to stock those vaccines they feel a need to stock and not one for everything that comes along or just these few noted in this..

Also this is one that they want children vaccinated with before they enter school but in so doing are making future blood supplies useless.

However, if everyone has been vaccinated for it (and quite frankly, Hepatitis is frightening enough that everyone should) then it won't have an affect on future blood supplies.

Also believe they have something effective for Malaria.. as spent a few Wednesday evenings in Viet Nam in the reading room after taking the pills to prevent it so see no reason it should not be included in the upper part rather than lower part with cancer and HIV.

You may be right there. I wasn't entirely sure about the Malaria bit either.

I've heard of malaria vaccinations - though I believe they're short term rather than life-time vaccinations (I believe Meningitis is like that too, which is good for something like 5 years).

We would certainly support the intent of this proposal, but we have some concerns with its present provisions.

We object to the requirement that the vaccinations be available in all hospitals. Our capital city has four hospitals. Why should each of them be required to administer all these types of vaccination? We'd suggest that the provision be changed to read that the vaccinations must be made reasonably available to all persons.

We have a similar concern with the clause on treatment. Hauptstadt North Hospital has an excellent oncology center, which provides the specialized care and services cancer patients and their families need. Our other hospitals refer cancer patients there. Saint Odwilla's Hospital has specially designed facilities for the care of patients suffering from HIV/AIDS-related illness and is staffed to ensure them properly respectful and competent care. We see no reason to be forced to change these systems of specialized care. Again, we suggest the proposal focus on availability of care, not where it must be provided.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Smallpox and maybe polio, and possibly other diseases can be completely eradicated. I would say that if a nation resides in a sphere of existence where certain diseases don't exist there is no need to have large amounts of vaccines available for them.

Smallpox and maybe polio, and possibly other diseases can be completely eradicated. I would say that if a nation resides in a sphere of existence where certain diseases don't exist there is no need to have large amounts of vaccines available for them.

That's not actually true, the virus that makes it still exists, and the vaccinations are wearing off. Lewis Black even made a joke about it.

Since you don't specify to whom you must give these to, I'm going to limit the free doses to high government officials. That satisfies the requirement that they be 'free' entirely. Screw the poor.

Also, my pharmaceutical and biological companies have informed me that they will stop research and production on all vaccines if distribution is nationalized. Drugs don't grow on trees. Do you mean to have the government reimburse the manufacturers, or is this just more pie-in-the-sky "I wished for it so there it is" crapola?

You haven't mentioned a category. If it doesn't involve a resource transfer in it somewhere, it's getting bounced.

Thanks people for bringing all these issues up. We will work on them straight away, and I will bring back the re-re-drafted proposal back here.

It would most likely go under a human rights category, but since I can't submit the proposal, it is upto the UN Delegate.

Why the distinction between HIV and AIDS?

Given that some vaccines are actually strong enough to cause the disease concerned in a measurable proportion of the people vaccinated, requiring the use of those vaccines in nations where the diseases concerned are currently more-or-less unknown might harm more people than it helps...

Why the distinction between HIV and AIDS?

They are two different progressions of the infection.

HIV is where you have the infection, but lies in a semi-active state.

AIDs is where it has got to the point where your white blood count is so low that your body can no longer defend itself from infection.


Or something like that....

Why the distinction between HIV and AIDS?Well, there's some noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal) that they're different things entirely...

Well, aside from that, there are a few resolutions you should have a look at, to make sure you aren't:
1. Contradicting
2. Simply restating what has already been done.

Keep the world disease free! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029596&postcount=10)
Global AIDS Initiative (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029660&postcount=33)
(possibly) Increased Access to Medicine (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030045&postcount=43)
(also possibly) Epidemic Prevention Protocol (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7243294&postcount=78)
NS HIV AIDS Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012656&postcount=85)
Eradicate Smallpox (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8616602&postcount=99)
There may be a few others as well.

I agree with your aims, but it will be difficult to make sure you aren't going against any of the above. Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on one particular disease, or a small number of them in detail, instead of simply doing a broad stroke.

Given that some vaccines are actually strong enough to cause the disease concerned in a measurable proportion of the people vaccinated, requiring the use of those vaccines in nations where the diseases concerned are currently more-or-less unknown might harm more people than it helps...


I don't get it :S But in the proposal we did state that vaccines used are harmless.

I've heard of malaria vaccinations - though I believe they're short term rather than life-time vaccinations (I believe Meningitis is like that too, which is good for something like 5 years).In 1970s in Nam took a pill for malaria once a week and don't think they have improved it.. but not sure.. do know that twelve hours later you needed to grab your book and head for reading room... We took the pill at breakfast every Wednesday and by that evening your were enjoying a good read.

Know they have something to test for Meningitis today but don't think they have a vaccine for it as if recal take a pill for 10 or 7 days if you might have been exposed to it. Lets you write your name in pink in snow when you take these pills. Been about five years since took the pills for meningitis and over 30 since took them for malaria.. so things may have changed.. Hepatitis took in 1995 and came up two years later could not give blood because levels of something had changed and I was not right. As had been donating blood with no problems.. Also was told they had also raised or lower some reading on tests and that my levels may not have changed but since the test levels did I was not in specs to give. Since Hep is blood born any signs of it in system means you probably can't give period.. As person who lost blood has a low white blood cell count and that is suppose to be where these dead virus in vaccines ride to do their work.. low white cells and low vaccine. Until the white cells recoup a person is prone to get it...... when my blood goes in and nothing there to kill vaccine.. or counter it. been to long since had them explain all this to me but made sense then...... just not safe.. to high a risk.. when person has lost their own blood....

However, if everyone has been vaccinated for it (and quite frankly, Hepatitis is frightening enough that everyone should) then it won't have an affect on future blood supplies. You may be right there. I wasn't entirely sure about the Malaria bit either.As for me it has been a good while since had to mess with any of these and would hope that improvements were made.. however for some nations here we would be starting out new.. and thus face some of those same problems as we advance into this. As I noted I gave blood with no problem for two years after had the vaccine for hep... I got the letter and dropped it and went home because my mom had gone into hospital.. I was expecting to give blood should she need it and at that time I thought I was okay to do so.. did open the letter until got back home three days later.. lucky my mom didn't need blood.. Also as noted above on blood born virus or whatever if a person looses their own blood then their white cell count is down.. thus what protection they might have is down.. add someone elses blood with no vaccine and their white cells tend to also attack any white cells in the other persons blood... no add dead virus in vaccine... and white cells fighting each other.. those dead cells have a free run.. in a weak body...

Thus there is a lot more to consider than just going up and giving folks a shot for something when that shot may do more harm in the long run than good..

But see efforts are being made in proposal to address some concerns so will back off..

Lets you write your name in pink in snow when you take these pills.Pink? When I had to take them, it turned my pee a disturbing shade of bright orange.

Being in middle-of-nowhere-northern Wisconsin didn't help matters any. "Hey dere! Dose pills turn yer pee orange?!" isn't something I ever expected to hear from a doctor. It's really hard to deal with the possibility of a family member dying when everyone in the hospital has a Minnesot'an accent (think: Fargo).

At any rate, at the time (about 14 years ago [my God... that long ago o_O ]) the only way to test for Meningitis was by doing a spinal tap. Luckily, said family member was so whacked out from the disease, he didn't feel it.

Pink? When I had to take them, it turned my pee a disturbing shade of bright orange.You're right now that I think back as I never did it in snow and mine was near pink in toilet but had a guy served with had to take them and he would leave little messages in the snow for all to read. AS in GA we haven't had any snow since 2002 in my area.. but any color other than natural is disturbing.....

First time I saw anyone had meningitis was in basic some 40 years ago.. Had to guys my unit come down they restricted us to a two block area... Was six weeks before found out where I was on that post and was just four blocks from main hwy in out post.... all because of the threat of meningitis. Don't think they as tight now since living conditions have improved in military barracks from then to now.. as close quarters leave every subject to exposure to it..

They had a health scare about 5 years ago in Alberta over meninjitis, 50 sick, 5 dead over the course of a year or so (something like that) and the province ordered vaccinations for everyone

It was a shot. Interestingly, they were going "this is good for 5 years, and if you've had a vaccine within the last 5 years, DON'T GET ANOTHER SHOT"

So I guess if you want to stay immunized, you've gotta go every 5 years plus a day.

I don't get it :S But in the proposal we did state that vaccines used are harmless.

Weakening certain types of vaccine sufficiently to guarantee that they won't harm any of the people vaccinated with them would almost certainly leave them so weak that they wouldn't give some of those vaccinated people the desired immunity either...

It was a shot. Interestingly, they were going "this is good for 5 years, and if you've had a vaccine within the last 5 years, DON'T GET ANOTHER SHOT"Trouble here is on that first batch given this nobody will know it it works for a day or a year of what thus you vaccinate and tommorow they die of it... thus why... did the vaccine fail or cause the death? Then you going along and 5 years 2 days later you are dead from it. Or Doctor Foundit feels they must get it every 300 days so day 300 you get it day 301 you dead or you driving to clinic to get it on day 300 and die from it. Now Doctor Foundit thinks maybe every 200 days or boost the dosage given. So they boost the dossage and dead again. At what point do they stop the maddness and let nature take her course?

I would venture to believe that medicine is not an exact science or we would have more folks living today.

No offence but a few of you went off topic talking about the colour of your urine.... A little irrelevant for a UN proposal or should I stick it in their to say that if you don't have this particular colour you are diseased?

The people of Airatum wish to reserve the right to withhold Influenze vaccines.

We note that:

Influenza is not normally fatal or overwhelmingly debilitating in otherwise normally healthy adults.

Influenze vaccine is often ineffective, as it requires prediction of which strains will be common in any given season.

Vaccination can give a false sense of invulnerability to a disease, and therefore lead to laxness with preventative measures (getting enough rest, eating nutritious food, handwashing).

Vaccine supplies are finite, and should be reserved for the elderly, young, and people with compromised immune systems, in whom Influenza can be debilitating and fatal.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

I still say this should got to a committee who decides which vaccines should be administered.

Forgottenlands will vote against this proposal as it assumes that these diseases will all be problematic in all nations AND it excludes the possibility for future diseases (eg: H5N1 and SARS being the two most recent RL eye-raisers) which may have vaccines developed for to prevent global outbreaks. With the UN focused on localized problems while giving itself absolutely no power to address immediate or upcoming known issues, we feel this proposal should not proceed.

Thanks for the new notes to go by. We should have the proposal redrafted over the next few days.

ForgottenLands, I'd appreciate it if you gave constructive criticism, rather than plain old grandpa 'You can't do that! Back in my day...'

We will most certainly address the issue of supplying vaccines to the more vulnerable.

I still don't see anyone answering the fundamental question of "what service is the government / UN providing?" You've got free vaccines from a disputable list. Fine. Now, where are they coming from? Who's paying for them? Are you making any provision for production, adaptability, spoilage, geographic or climate variation, or anything else? Why should an arctic-only nation maintain supplies of malaria vaccine? What happens when a new disease vector introduces something new, like bird flu?Face facts, people. It takes human and material resources to produce what you need. If you don't factor that into the equation when proposing blue-sky legislation like this, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. This stuff ain't free. How you gonna pay for it? TANSTAAFL. "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."[OOC] I work for a large transnational pharmaceutical company. Everyone in the company can see a huge potential market in bird flu vaccines. We've got tons of production capacity. I believe our R&D people have even produced a viable vaccine for the current strain of bird flu. Wanna know how long it'll take us to ramp up emergency production of bird flu vaccine into any useful quantity?

Four years.

In four years, it's entirely possible that half our targeted population will be DEAD. We know that, and so do our competitors, who face the same problems. It doesn't matter how many billions of dollars, euros, or pounds we toss at the problem - there are simply physical limitations on how long it takes to produce biological drugs like this in meaningful quantities. You can't just drill a hole and pump out more of it to meet demand. It's coming from live sources. It takes time to grow.

People think of my employer as a large, heartless organization driven only by profit. They can't see the details of why it takes so long to produce drugs, or why they cost so damn much. They only know that they want what they want, and they want it cheap and now. That's not how the world works, people.If this is proposed as Human Rights ("A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.") I will delete it for Category violation. It doesn't really fit under Social Justice ("A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare."), but it's closer to that than any other. You want this? You have to pay for it. Cash money, right on the barrelhead.

Wow Frisbeeteria, you are really against it! Even though:

1. Some people would support it already.
2. Some people would support it with adjustments.
3. It is already mandatory to have some particular vaccinations here in the UK!

You sort of moderators make me sick. This is surely an abuse of power. Deleting a perfectly good proposal (Although it may not make quorum). Please specify how it wouldn't come under human rights? Surely if someone wanted to and couldn't get one it would be a breach of human rights?

Delete this if you will, I will make another proposal possibly related to this one, but sure dam I will.

While I don't quite understand Fris's claims that this doesn't really fit under social justice (or its that far off human rights), but I am going to agree that this is social justice instead of human rights. Your proposal isn't prioritizing that they have the right to get the vaccination, it is prioritizing that they have the access to the vaccination. Accessability baseless of class is generally social justice instead of human rights. Let's take abortion for example:
-Legalize abortion: Human Rights. If you can't afford the abortion, you're SOL and such a proposal wouldn't do anything about it
-Government funded abortion: Social Justice. You get the class distinction removed and now everyone is able to get an abortion regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

Admittedly, the latter might still be filed under human rights since abortion isn't really a guarantee in many nations (whereas vaccinations might be illegal in Gruenberg, but that's about it), so you aren't necessarily giving a person more rights by bringing availability - you are, however, dropping the class segregation.

1. Some people would support it already.
2. Some people would support it with adjustments.
3. It is already mandatory to have some particular vaccinations here in the UK!.
1. Appeals to popularity do not make it fit the rules
2. ditto
3. You pay a wicked tax rate for those too, don't you? Or if you don't get them via National Health, you pay some doctor to stick you. Either way, you pay. Which is fine. Just don't try to disguise it as Human Rights in game terms. It doesn't fit.
You sort of moderators make me sick. This is surely an abuse of power. Deleting a perfectly good proposal (Although it may not make quorum). Please specify how it wouldn't come under human rights? Surely if someone wanted to and couldn't get one it would be a breach of human rights?
Apart from your venomous tone, you forget that this game plays by certain rules. You may consider vaccinations to be Human Rights, but the description of Human Rights doesn't match what you want this proposal to do.

The key word here is "Free". If you want everyone to have access to vaccines, you could make the case that it's a human right not to be denied access. However, you want to give them away. That's redistribution of assets, necessarily from the rich (drug companies) to the poor. That's Social Justice, in a sense. (It's really supposed to take from the rich taxpayers and hand it to the poor non-taxpayers, but we're quibbling now)

Now, go get your knickers untwisted and read the Rules of Proposals. It's all explained there.

Yeah, Social Justice is the best fit here, and it's a pretty poor fit at that:

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

There's not much income inequality being reduced here, but I can see the spin for it: drug companies are being squeezed for the drugs, or taxes are increased to subsidise the drugs.

As written, it has nothing to do with Human Rights.

This draft is Good and bad You see.....If noone could die from these diseases Then the World would Have a Huge population Jump making Overpopulation a very big Problem.

This draft is Good and bad You see.....If noone could die from these diseases Then the World would Have a Huge population Jump making Overpopulation a very big Problem.
The population of the NS world was several trillion at the last census, I think we're looooooooooooooong past the point where overpopulation is a problem.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I still say this should got to a committee who decides which vaccines should be administered.

Forgottenlands will vote against this proposal as it assumes that these diseases will all be problematic in all nations AND it excludes the possibility for future diseases (eg: H5N1 and SARS being the two most recent RL eye-raisers) which may have vaccines developed for to prevent global outbreaks. With the UN focused on localized problems while giving itself absolutely no power to address immediate or upcoming known issues, we feel this proposal should not proceed.

Agree in the need for a committee to determine what diseases are a greater threat to membership rather than just take a few as listed here and assume they are all the diseases that face membership. This committee needs to establish some means to determine threat levels of any desease on the entire UN population not just the larger nations... However we relealize they for the most part will be the ones this is a greater threat to but know that many already have addressed their national health issues both within their borders and from outside it. Thus this committee mush have the power to freely work with national health agencies in doing their duties to address threats to all members of the UN.. faily and equaly.. without bias...

The Planet Jurai views this proposal as a good one (but not without a significant flaw, which would be a heavy blow to taxpayers and private medical sector; imagine how much money mandatory free vaccinations are going to cost), and will consider supporting it if it is put under correct category (and since we don't have specific category for medical proposals, in this particular case it would be "Social Justice"). I cannot help agreeing with Moderation; mandatory vaccinations have absolutely nothing to do with human rights.