NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello everyone

I'm new to this, and I'd like to improve the game somehow. I've been somehow angered (well, this is just a game) about the "Pay organ donation issue", and its result. I outlawed it, and donation just reached a new low...

What about a UN Resolution to repeal the issue.

Here's what it would look like (constructive criticism welcome - btw, I'm French, so forgive my English ;) )

"REALIZING that in many nations - if not all - hospitals are lacking organs and bodily fluids to transplant to diseased people the working poor, especially women, infants and children, suffer most from this lack of legislation;

CONVINCED of the need to rectify this situation;

RECOGNIZING the right of anyone to dispose of one's own body, be it after death;

RESOLVED to help ensure the supply of organs and bodily fluids ;

The General Assembly of The United Nations hereby ordains that:

(I) For the purposes of this legislation, the notion of safety is associated to the point of advancement of medical science and how common and accepted by the international medical community, a medical operation is;

(II) For the purposes of this legislation, an organ is defined as any part of the human body the science can take from one corpse in order to safely replace the same diseased, severed or [I would like to say 'inoperant', without knowing if this does mean anything] part in a living person; a bodily fluid is defined as any fluid produced by the body and necessary to its health;

(III) All UN nations are strongly encouraged to enact legislation:

(i) Allowing to take, from any recently deceased person, any organ that could safely be of use in the healing of a patient;
(ii) Allowing any person not wishing to donate organs upon death should let their desire be known by appropriate legal document or affidavit (i.e. last will and testament);
(iii) Forbidding to receive payement in any case for the donation of an organ;

(IV) It is affirmed that UN nations shall retain the right to make final decisions in all matters concerning organs donation, taking into account local medical conditions and factors affecting the health of all their citizenry."

Let's work on this !

Hey, that text looks familiar!

I humbly apologize : I must confess I took your structure to write my proposal :)

I hope you'll forgive me.

I humbly apologize : I must confess I took your structure to write my proposal :)

I hope you'll forgive me.
It's fine. There's nothing wrong with using it as a template, but you can add to it or take parts out. You know, make it your own. The first proposal I ever wrote (International Cheese Act) was based on the format of an earlier Resolution.

You might want to look over the list of passed resolutions: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572

Specifically, make sure you don't have any conflicts with UNWODC: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8616557&postcount=97

OOC:

Welcome to the UN, Kulgahiz! You've brought up an interesting subject. I think it's worth exploring. Don't worry about your English. There are plenty of us here who will be happy to work with you on the wording and format of the proposal.

Bonjour! Comment allez-vous?

I like the idea. Some things I would change are:

Add some language to the definition of bodily fluid in section II to include that the liquids/fluids are necessary to its function, for a bit more clarity
(please note this is being purely technical and is not entirely necessary).

Section II could be clarified to "Any person not wishing to donate organs upon death should let their desire be known by appropriate legal document or affidavit (i.e. last will and testament)

In section III i, change 'diseased one' to 'patient' [suffering from organ failure due to disease or defect].

Spelling of "paiement" to proper "payment." Also striking "to receive" from provision III iv.

One more thing to modify would be identifying types of bodily fluids for clarity and prevention of confusion.

Before you go any further, look over the proposal categories carefully. Pick one, and its appropriate strength or effect. People here might have suggestions as well.

If your proposal is not in an appropriate category, it will be deleted by mods like me. No point in having it removed right from the start, so plan your category now.

What about a UN Resolution to repeal the issue.I just thought I'd point out that even if you write this resolution, get it to quorum, and get it passed, it won't stop the game from giving you the issue.

I just thought I'd point out that even if you write this resolution, get it to quorum, and get it passed, it won't stop the game from giving you the issue.

I don't think that is the entire point, though.

I don't think that is the entire point, though.
That may be true, but they did say
What about a UN Resolution to repeal the issue.
and considering their join date, I figured that there's a good chance that they're a new player who may not be aware of the fact that UN resolutions can't prevent certain issues from coming up. (I'm obviously not counting any stat changes that resolutions cause)

I think that the moderators may be able to remove the issue from the "lottery" so to speak (purely random speculation).

I would really like to see this proposal submitted. The premise is very good.
Much better than I could think of.

I think that the moderators may be able to remove the issue from the "lottery" so to speak (purely random speculation).

No they can't, that's why even though the UN has passed resolutions on prostitution, euthanasia, abortion, and other topics that there are issues about, those issues still come up for UN members.

I stand corrected, but let's get back on topic. It would be a shame for this to get locked for getting off-topic.

No they can't, that's why even though the UN has passed resolutions on prostitution, euthanasia, abortion, and other topics that there are issues about, those issues still come up for UN members.

Then, what is the point ? I don't understand how can this stand along with the game rule saying "as long as you're a member of UN, you must comply to all resolutions it passed" ?
Any explanation ?

It is a game mechanics thing.

Yes, it does not make sense, but it's not a big issue.

Yes, it does not make sense, but it's not a big issue.No, it makes perfect sense.

There is no way to code the game to automatically discount you from issues that contradict UN Resolutions. If we were to do this, an Admin would need to, by hand, check all 200-some issues against the current Resolution. And whenever one was Repealed, said admin would have to, by hand, check all 200-some issues to see if they were now allowed. Likewise, every time a new issue was added, it would need to be checked against all 180-some Resolutions.

I'm sure they'd be just thrilled with the idea of needing to do this practically every week.

No, it makes perfect sense.I wasn't very clear when I said that (sorry) - I meant in terms of if you knew nothing about the mechanics involved.

Before you go any further, look over the proposal categories carefully. Pick one, and its appropriate strength or effect. People here might have suggestions as well.
Moral Decency, Mild would be mine: this fairly clearly seems to be allowing governments to make certain decisions on behalf of individuals, whilst prohibiting certain rights (deciding what to do with one's body).

Also, strike clause IV: it serves no purpose whatsofuckingever. The UN does not have the right to make all decisions about organ donation, nor should it.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

This is the classic exclusion inclusion problem. I would rather the person had a right to notify that their organs were available for harvesting. The government should not just harvest the organs if the person has said nothing. This would assume lets say a religious group had their organs harvested like the Jehovahs Witnesses, or the Amish because they did not write a formal will. You suddenly have a tremendous moral problem because you just grabbed everyones organs because there was no legal document.

It is also the argument presented by various large corporations-- if you didn't put together a legal document before hand that says I can't use you junk, I can use it anyway I want to. It is morally repulsiive and legally questionable.

This is the classic exclusion inclusion problem. I would rather the person had a right to notify that their organs were available for harvesting. The government should not just harvest the organs if the person has said nothing. This would assume lets say a religious group had their organs harvested like the Jehovahs Witnesses, or the Amish because they did not write a formal will. You suddenly have a tremendous moral problem because you just grabbed everyones organs because there was no legal document.

It is also the argument presented by various large corporations-- if you didn't put together a legal document before hand that says I can't use you junk, I can use it anyway I want to. It is morally repulsiive and legally questionable.


This goes back to what I was saying about having the provision dealing with Last Will and Testaments. I believe the organs should be fair game unless the Will explicitly says 'no.'

I believe the organs should be fair game unless the Will explicitly says 'no.'

That is already the case here in Ariddia, and I agree with the idea. But I have to say I'm hesitant about imposing it on all member States and cultures.

I could still go either way on this one.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I too, am torn on this one. While I personally like the idea, and agree that it would improve organ donation rates if passed, however, there are many whose cultures and religions hold the deceased as sanctified, in body as well as in spirit.

In Drae Nei, we presently allow for our citizens to indicate their wishes to donate organs in the case of death, but the numbers who do so are sufficiently small in comparison to our need, so that often the ill must wait. However, I am not sure that a carte blanche resolution to the opposite would be well received.

For now, I am undecided, but will confer with our spiritual leaders, as well as our Director of Health, to come to a unified position.

This goes back to what I was saying about having the provision dealing with Last Will and Testaments. I believe the organs should be fair game unless the Will explicitly says 'no.'With the utmost respect, let me offer this observation: it is generally only people with significant assets - property owners - who enact wills. Most people of modest means don't generally think they need a will, as they don't think of themselves as having anything to bequeath to anybody.

In addition, testamentary law varies from nation to nation. Some nations permit holographic wills and allow these to be valid without witness; some of these also permit such wills to be held among the personal papers of the deceased. Others require witnesses, possibly notarized, or require filing with a magistrate or clerk, or even require legal assistance in their drafting.

All of these methods cause problems with your proposal. In the case of a unwitnessed holographic will contained among a person's papers, the will is unlikely to be found until the time has passed for organ harvesting; to prevent the violation of a person's will, you would have to impose a self-defeating waiting period; that or you'd have to invalidate such wills, at least with respect to medical gifts and organ donation.

On the other hand, formally submitted and certified wills require an expenditure of time and expense that will act as an obstacle to many - especially those of modest means - to the filing of a will; the more legal involvement, the greater the expense and the greater the corresponding deterrent.

I personally believe that societies should make the issuance of wills as easy as possible, but your resolution flies in the face of that. To make organ harvesting practical, you need a readily-accessed database, and that requires formal registration of citizens' intentions through agencies able to update that database - a sizable obstacle to the creation of wills. The consequences of this go beyond organ harvesting, to matters of probate and inheritance, a perfect example of unintended side effects, since the survivors of the dead of modest means are likely to be the very people who can least afford probate.

Finally, it is simply wrong to presume that people who fail to publicly express no desire to retain bodily integrity upon death don't care if their bodies are harvested or not; indeed, in some countries such as ours bodily integrity upon burial is taken seriously; we have laws against desecration of the dead that are centuries old, and only recently has religious opposition to organ donation by the dead diminished to the point where the Islamic Republic has been able to permit post-mortem organ harvesting (live donation has never been a problem). To say that none of us mind if our bodies are carved up for parts is objectionable.

No, we do not believe that "default donate" legislation is proper; rather, donation should be something that requires express prior consent, in which case existing organ bank legislation should be sufficient.

- The Islamic Republic of Ayaddha (Observer Delegation)

OOC: Don't gripe that we're not a member of the U.N.; the argument is what matters, and besides - we could always join at some date in the future.

We haven't decided yet whether the idea of default donation of organs is feasible or not. But we'd like to discuss one point made by the visitor from Ayaddha.

Finally, it is simply wrong to presume that people who fail to publicly express no desire to retain bodily integrity upon death don't care if their bodies are harvested or not; indeed, in some countries such as ours bodily integrity upon burial is taken seriously; we have laws against desecration of the dead that are centuries old, and only recently has religious opposition to organ donation by the dead diminished to the point where the Islamic Republic has been able to permit post-mortem organ harvesting (live donation has never been a problem). To say that none of us mind if our bodies are carved up for parts is objectionable.

It seems to us that, if a person felt strongly about not having his or her organs harvested, he or she would care enough to take the steps necessary to make sure it doesn't happen. If the means of registering (or whatever they'd have to do) is made readily accessible, why would this be unreasonable?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

There is no way to code the game to automatically discount you from issues that contradict UN Resolutions.

I agree with you completely. On the other hand, we have a ton of people who seem to want to do all sorts of strange things with resolutions. (Like maintain wiki pages with debates and everything.) I sure wish we had some idiot (I mean volunteer) to maintain a cross table of resolutions and daily issues with reccomended do not select because this would violate resolution #### in it.

Originally posted by Ausserland
It seems to us that, if a person felt strongly about not having his or her organs harvested, he or she would care enough to take the steps necessary to make sure it doesn't happen. If the means of registering (or whatever they'd have to do) is made readily accessible, why would this be unreasonable?


In Drae Nei, this option already exists, as all citizens are required to obtain a state ID card at age 18. The option is there at that time, when they fill out the forms required for obtaining the card, which is mandatory. However, by default, answering the question regarding organ donation is optional, and if unanswered, they are not considered for organ donation. This resolution would offer the same choice, but the default would be yes, for organ donation.

I agree with you completely. On the other hand, we have a ton of people who seem to want to do all sorts of strange things with resolutions. (Like maintain wiki pages with debates and everything.) I sure wish we had some idiot (I mean volunteer) to maintain a cross table of resolutions and daily issues with reccomended do not select because this would violate resolution #### in it.

Not to Hijack the thread...but I think that would be a capital idea...I just dont know how to go about it.

Back on the topic:

We would oppose this measure. Mainly because we feel that bodily integrity is important up-to the point of the funeral (after that point we usually cremate--although Comrade Serpov, who is President of the Council of Ministers and General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt, is currently contesting a legal battle where he is trying to defend his right to be cremated--the opposition wishing to mummify him and place him on permanent display in a mausoleum), usually under Elleltian standards the second or third day following death provided that said death is not under investigation by the People's Police, or the Commission for Extraordinary Affairs (called Checka in Elleltian). That being the case, the organs and fluids that you propose would have already been dead for at least 24 hours meaning their usefulness in transplantation would be nil.

The best solution to the problem would not to have automatic organ/bodily fluid harvesting, but to rather make the harvesting available under the clauses contained in a Last Will and Testament. In this manner the religions of the various UN nations that have a problem with organ/bodily fluid harvesting from the dead would be satisfied, as well as nations which would oppose this on cultural grounds.

Overall I think this draft was well written, we give you a red-star for effort.;)

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN

It seems to us that, if a person felt strongly about not having his or her organs harvested, he or she would care enough to take the steps necessary to make sure it doesn't happen. If the means of registering (or whatever they'd have to do) is made readily accessible, why would this be unreasonable?If they were well off enough to take the time and spend the money to do so, they probably would. But if they were poor and possibly illiterate, then why should we confuse a lack of time and means with willingness to donate?

To be sure, governments that support a prevailing cultural predisposition against post-mortem donation would likely spend the money needed to make sure that a registration of one's wishes is necessary; but even then, there would be cases - and perhaps quiet a few cases at that - if which the state was forced by this resolution to act against people's wishes.

Besides, why should cultures that dislike the idea of automatic body harvesting upon death have to spend extra money in an effort to uphold their cultural values? And with every nation periodically facing this issue individually, as well as an international organ bank, why should they have to?

At least one ambassador has been overheard in the Stranger's Bar saying that she would support this because it would "make things easier politically" for her government. Why should the rest of us take the heat for nations like hers? What's the real need for this measure, if we can handle this locally?

- The Islamic Republic of Ayaddha (Observer Delegation)

Not to Hijack the thread...but I think that would be a capital idea...I just dont know how to go about it.
OOC: The best bet would be to take it to the Tech (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1224) forum.
Where most likely the admins will tell you no.

OOC: The best bet would be to take it to the Tech (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1224) forum.
I'll save you the trip. No.

Take it to NSwiki and start your own cross-reference.