NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I'm not sure what I meant by that second option either.
World Blood Bank (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=54)
Social Justice, Mild

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.
I was looking over this today, and I noted with alarm than it appeared more sweeping than I'd given it credit, previously. Nonetheless, I'm still not totally sure about what it does - hence the poll - and would like to see what people think. Note, I'm not so much asking "what does your nation think it does?" - your nation may well contribute to the WBB, but that in itself doesn't mean we have to - but "what on a general objective level does it require?"

The key thing for me is what it means when it says "donations" in the third last line: does that mean "the donations of nations" or "the donations of individuals"? If the former, then fine, slightly impractical, but no real problem. If the latter, then HOLY FUCK!

Even if it's the latter, man, it only proposes a World Blood Bank. Then it goes on with some "would" and "should" stuff. Nothing's ever mandated. It doesn't do shit -- unlike this weed I'm smoking, which is kicking my ass!

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I think you've exhausted that particular joke.

I think you've exhausted that particular joke.


Who's joking, dude?

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hey, Larebil... I've heard that you can get an amazing high by drinking Conium maculatum, which I just so happen to have a tall glass of. Care to try it?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Hey, Larebil... I've heard that you can get an amazing high by drinking Conium maculatum, which I just so happen to have a tall glass of. Care to try it?

Dude, I'm all set with hemlock, but thanks. Here, have a flower.

http://www.british-wild-flowers.co.uk/00%20David%20Fenwick/Poppy,-Opium.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The key thing for me is what it means when it says "donations" in the third last line: does that mean "the donations of nations" or "the donations of individuals"? If the former, then fine, slightly impractical, but no real problem. If the latter, then HOLY FUCK!

Let's see...


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.


"All nation's [sic] donations" would seem to suggest "any donations voluntarily made by a national government, or an NGO, Red Cross, Red Crescent... etc with the approval of the authorities". But then we get to the next line, which seems to be saying that the WBB can take whatever it wants from each nation's reserves.

In that sense, "all nations' donations" probably means "all donations made by individuals within each nation", to a national organisation and not directly to the WBB. In other words, if a citizen gives blood to the local Red Cross, the WBB can then take some of that blood.

Of course, the conditional ("A World Blood Bank is proposed", "UN nations would need to open up their reserves ") makes the whole thing rather messy, but I assume the passing of the resolution means it's all been implemented, despite the clumsy phrasing of the text.

So, to answer your question, I do think it means "the donations of individuals".

Whatever, let's repeal it.

Whatever, let's repeal it.

My government would not oppose such a repeal, except under very special circumstances. *wink nudge*

We do feel that this resolution is very strongly worded and essentially requires centralized UN organ donations.

Ehhh. I'm not too hot on it.

Edit: At best, it does nothing, at worst, it takes reserves from each country and tosses it all over the place. Dunno whether or not that's a good thing...

While a valiant effort, many people in the UN do not possess the knowledge needed to create a proposal that has any meaning. Unfortunately, it seems that only proposals like that were the ones that got through. There's more examples, as I have an Unofficial thread for another post.

Let's write a repeal for this ineffectual code.

OOC:

Lines 1 through 8 are descriptive, and not necessarily true for all UN members - there are probably several UN states where blood and organ donations meet the needs of the population. Still, they aren't enough to convince me to repeal it.

I think that the word "proposes" in line 9 of the resolution may very well convert a mandate into a voluntary program, in that the organ bank is only being "proposed" rather than "created" or "constructed". Semantic, perhaps, but certainly a reading that many nations wary of too much UN power will employ.

At the same time, line 10 seems more forceful, with "UN nations would need to..." coming very close to a mandatory clause. The word "reserves" in the same line, however, is ambiguous if one is to take a legalistic reading of the resolution. What constitutes national "reserves"? Does this refer to all organs, some organs, blood, financial "reserves", or some combination thereof? Financial "reserves" may be a contender simply because line 10 continues to describe funding.

The last two lines involve a committee which (thank goodness) actually exists. It's essentially a safeguard designed to create a minimum level of medical safety. I don't have a problem with them.

So I come to the conclusion that this resolution very strongly encourages a UN organ bank that would use the "extra" organs and blood for redistribution. While the language might suggest that it mandates UN control of all organs and blood supplies, few UN states would adhere to the measure; metagaming, to be sure, but I feel it's the most accurate picture to be had.

In conclusion, I wouldn't care if it were left in place or repealed.

OOC:

In conclusion, I wouldn't care if it were left in place or repealed.

I lost the will to care about UN resolutions once the repeal mechanism came into being. It creates an endless uninspiring cycle of the same ideas debated with the usual bad spelling in unlimitless supply, or if we are really lucky, the opportunity to abuse the words 'whereas', 'understanding' and 'mindful'.

It also fuels the mind numbingly dull 'illeagle' comments. So lets put that to rest now shall we? An illeagle has feathers, a sharp beak, a meat eating diet, talons and looks a bit sickly. Illegal, would be if you took said bird, to a nation with respectable laws, and shot it. As far as I know in most nations it is not illegal and they do not arrest you for writing poorly written and/or dull proposals, although they may wish to consider it.

Hmmmm.....perhaps today could be known as Bahgum Cynical Day.

OOC:

Based on my reading, I'd say it very effectively does basically nothing.

I never liked that resolution when it came up for vote, and still don't.

I thought the resolution was obvious.
It "proposed" a blood bank.
It contained a fluffy clause to a RW organization. :eek:
It suggested standards but no means to coordinate or enforce them apart from the RW reference.

It's really silly. It's called a blood bank, but do they give interest? No!

I thought the resolution was obvious.
It "proposed" a blood bank.
It contained a fluffy clause to a RW organization. :eek:
It suggested standards but no means to coordinate or enforce them apart from the RW reference.

It's really silly. It's called a blood bank, but do they give interest? No!

OOC: Actually, there is an NS Red Cross, if I remember correctly.

OOC: Actually, there is an NS Red Cross, if I remember correctly.

You do! :)

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/International_Red_Cross_Organization

Resolution #29
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=28

OOC: Thanks! Good to know that it's not just you and Gruen who can remember all this shite. ;)