Sovreignry wrote:One issue I find is that it should be an opt-in program instead of an opt-out program due to the fact that some religions do not allow the body to be cut open, and the burden of red tape should not be on them.
The opt-out clause isn't mandatory for this reason. In my nation, there is a national opt-out system of organ donation. All members of religions opposed to organ donation are considered to have opted out by the very selection of such religions.
Puissancevise wrote:I oppose it very strongly. Organ donation is compulsory in The Democratic States of Puissancevise.
Where is there a ban on compulsory organ harvesting in this proposal?
Linux and the X wrote:2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;
What is the meaning of
live in this clause? Extraction for organ donations is generally performed while the donor is kept "alive" in some sense by life support machines, as removal from life support would result in deterioration. Would this require informed consent for all organ donations?
This depends on your nation's statutory definition of death; the debate on when death occurs is an issue that the General Assembly should leave alone. Because organ harvesting can be done after death, I think nations should err on the side of requiring consent. By not opting out of an opt-out organ donation system, a person could be considered to have provided informed consent, albeit tacitly.
Bears Armed wrote:5. Requires that all donated blood be tested for infections such as the human immunodeficiency virus and that all infected blood be treated as a biohazard and be quickly and safely discarded;
What does "such as" mean in this context? Does it mean "including but not limited to", so that even Ursine blood donations that are going to be used on other Ursines rather than on Humans would have to be tested -- needlessly -- for
human immunodeficiency virus? Does it mean "of the same family of viruses as"? What?
I'll remove that phrase.
Alqania wrote:"Interesting", Christine mused.
"Could it perhaps be elaborated on how this is a Human Rights proposal however? I am not entirely convinced that this proposal, as currently worded, adequately fits that category. While on the important topic of human rights though, the Queendom would like to see something added to this proposal to the effect of banning discrimination in accepting donors. While we would of course not want it to duplicate anything in the CoCR, we would like to see the common practice of declining donations from people based on sexual orientation ended and there is probably reason to include other grounds as well, such as gender, species, ethnicity, religion and ability. Regardless of one's position on whether people have a right
to be donors
, discrimination in this area would most definitely go against the intention of this proposal, if I may be so presumptuous as to say I have understood the intention."
This proposal would advance the rights to life and health.
I've considered inserting such a clause, but it seems that COCR already covers this (see GAR 35, art. 1, ยง C). I agree that non-heterosexuals should not categorically be denied the ability to become organ and blood donors.
Southern Patriots wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;
"Perhaps some oversight by designating what can be a donation center, or licensing them, to ensure a black market in organs donated with "consent" doesn't arise?"
I'm an international federalist; I don't support a world unitary state. I think enforcement of a proposal like this should be left to individual member states.
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:33 pmChristian Democrats
You steal organs from live patients!!!