NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Biomedical Donor Rights

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Biomedical Donor Rights

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:39 am

Here's a quick recap of what this proposal does (and, therefore, why you should support it):
  • Ensures that individuals who wish to donate biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against.
  • Procedures used for donation will be done humanely with sterile technique.
  • Requires consent of the donors, and places a priority on following the wishes of individuals as stated in advance health care directives (i.e. a living will).
  • Separates the "declaring an individual as being brain dead" process from the transplant process, to avoid conflicts of interest and potentially biased/false declarations.

BIOMEDICAL DONOR RIGHTS
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Description:THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights and protections under WA law.

REALIZES that many live donors of biomedical tissues often are donors for altruistic reasons and may receive no personal benefit from the procedure.

WISHES to ensure that donors of biomedical tissues shall not be exploited or discriminated against in any way throughout the donation process.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells, those found in the bone marrow and the umbilical cord, and other adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

DECLARES that prospective donors of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

REQUIRES that the donation process for biomedical procedures shall involve:
  1. Techniques that are as humane as is practicable using appropriate sterile technique for the procedure in question.
  2. Testing and typing of the donor and donated biomedical tissues in order to:
    1. Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
    2. Determine whether or not a disease or infection is present in the biomedical tissue.
    3. Simplify the matching of donated biomedical tissues with recipients so as to minimize negative transfusion reactions, biomedical tissue rejection, and the transference of disease or infection.
MANDATES that prospective donors shall be given all medically relevant facts regarding the biomedical procedure prior to obtaining their uncoerced, informed consent.
  1. A legally completed advance health care directive (e.g. living will) shall be followed in order to respect the wishes of the individual in question.
  2. In the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive, WA member nations may permit an individual's legal guardian or next-of-kin to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor in the event that the individual in question is under the threshold of majority or is otherwise unable to understand the information in question.
RECOMMENDS that individual WA member nations adopt an opt-out system for biomedical tissue donation from irreversibly "brain dead" donors, in the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive.

DECREES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

PERMITS individual WA Nations and their health care systems to delay or defer donation of biomedical tissues due to a donor's co-existing medical condition, which may place a potential recipient at risk; if such a medical condition exists, WA nations are urged to make all reasonable attempts at treatment so as to allow the donation to occur.


Version 2.1
BIOMEDICAL DONOR RIGHTS
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Description:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights and protections under WA law.

REALIZES that many donors of biomedical tissues often do so for altruistic reasons and get no personal benefit from the procedure.

WISHES to ensure that donors of biomedical tissues shall not be exploited or discriminated against in any way throughout the donation process.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as bone marrow tissue, cord blood cells, embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

DECLARES that prospective donors of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

REQUIRES that the donation process for biomedical procedures shall involve:
  1. Techniques that are as humane as is practicable using appropriate sterile technique for the procedure in question.
  2. Testing and typing of the donor and/or donated biomedical tissues in order to:
    1. Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
    2. Determine whether or not a disease or infection is present in the biomedical tissue.
    3. Simplify the matching of donated biomedical tissues with recipients so as to minimize negative transfusion reactions, biomedical tissue rejection, and the transference of disease or infection.
MANDATES that prospective donors shall be given all medically relevant facts regarding the biomedical procedure prior to obtaining their uncoerced, informed consent.
  1. Legally completed advance health care directives (e.g. living will) shall be followed in order to respect the wishes of the individual in question.
  2. In the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive, WA member nations may permit an individual's legal guardian or next-of-kin to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor in the event that the individual in question is under the threshold of majority or the individual in question is otherwise unable to understand the information and/or procedure.
RECOMMENDS that individual WA member nations adopt an opt-out system for biomedical tissue donation from irreversibly "brain dead" donors, in the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive.

SPECIFIES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

PERMITS WA Nations and their health care systems to delay or defer donation of biomedical tissues due to a donor's co-existing medical condition, which may place a potential recipient at risk; if such a medical condition exists, WA nations are urged to make all reasonable attempts at treatment so as to allow the donation to occur.

Character count: 3138
BIOMEDICAL DONOR RIGHTS
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Description:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights with regards to medical procedures and, specifically, with regards to biomedical treatments.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as bone marrow tissue, cord blood cells, embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

DECLARES that prospective donors of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

REQUIRES that the donation process for biomedical procedures shall involve:
  1. Techniques that are as humane as is practicable using appropriate sterile technique for the procedure in question.
  2. Testing and typing of the donor and/or donated biomedical tissues in order to:
    1. Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
    2. Determine whether or not a disease or infection is present in the biomedical tissue.
    3. Simplify the future matching of donated biomedical tissues with recipients so as to minimize negative transfusion reactions, biomedical tissue rejection, and the transference of disease or infection.
MANDATES that prospective donors shall be given all medically relevant facts regarding the biomedical procedure prior to obtaining their uncoerced, informed consent.
  1. Legally completed advance health care directives (e.g. living will) shall be followed in order to respect the wishes of the individual in question.
  2. In the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive, WA member nations may permit an individual's legal guardian or next-of-kin to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor in the event that the individual in question is under the threshold of majority or the individual in question is otherwise unable to understand the information and/or procedure.
RECOMMENDS that individual WA Nations adopt an opt-out system for biomedical tissue donation from irreversibly "brain dead" donors, in the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive.

SPECIFIES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

PERMITS WA Nations and their health care systems to delay or defer donation of biomedical tissues due to a donor's co-existing medical condition, which may place a potential recipient at risk; if such a medical condition exists, WA nations are urged to make all reasonable attempts at treatment so as to allow the donation to occur.


*coughs* So these are split now. I guess one question that still needs to be answered - since these are split, is it still worthy of a "Significant" strength, or should I be knocking it down to Mild.

I was also planning to lead with this (pre-split) proposal when it comes to submitting the replacements, but now I'm wondering if I should split them up in the order or submission.

Thoughts on those questions - and anything else you have to offer - are appreciated.


Original draft's thread can be found here.

Thanks!
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Last edited by Mousebumples on Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:42 am, edited 10 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5461
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:08 am

We would advise the more flexible "threshold" of majority rather than "age".
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:25 am

Linux and the X wrote:We would advise the more flexible "threshold" of majority rather than "age".

I can work with that. The implication is the same for nations that use a set age as the definition of majority and is - as you say - more flexible for nations such as yours that don't differentiate based on the age of an individual.

I'll update that accordingly in all of the drafts where "age of majority" is referenced. Which ... might be all of them.

Thanks for the feedback!
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Eireann Fae
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Oct 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eireann Fae » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:59 am

Rowan smiles at Fred[1] in appreciation for his thoughtfulness.




1 I have an old document listing a few ambassadors of nations, and this guy was there. If it's wrong, lemme know ;)

(OOC: Will post more later. For now, I must go to training for work. Bloody night job and my boss has me attending a class in the middle of the gorram day ;x)

User avatar
Eireann Fae
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Oct 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eireann Fae » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:44 am

"Hullo again, Ambassador," Rowan smiles as she greets Nikolas Eberhart, always glad to see such a master of international law and diplomacy in action. Epiſkœ and her young translator have been keeping somewhat close tabs on the progress of Ambassador Eberhart's multiple healthcare proposals. Having studied the Donor Rights draft, the Emissary from Eireann Fae has a few things to say on the matter. As per usual, though, her twelve-year-old aide does the talking.

"Our first concern here is that you're being too exacting with the definitions[1] laid out in the draft of this resolution. If you are so specific about what is included in the provisions of this law, we believe this leaves room for nations to leave certain essentials out. For example, what about beings wishing to donate skin, or a wing, or a body part not even completely understood by you or I? Would it not be simpler to allow the donation of any part of one's body, organic or otherwise?"

"Secondly[2], what if the donor is willing to give their life to save another? One of your required tests would seem to exclude the possibility, but at the very least, I think many parents would willingly give their lives to prolong those of their children. Or a friend, or a sibling, or even simply someone that they feel could be a better benefit to the world than themselves. We realize this may be considered in one extreme to be assisted suicide, but nevertheless, believe that such a thing ought to be allowed. I recall hearing about a man that was willing to die so that his son may have his heart and live on"

"Finally, I do understand why you are asking for the separation of staff[3] here, but ask if you have considered that perhaps not all medical institutions, or indeed, nations, are suitably staffed to require such measures as outlined in the draft. In a small community of a few hundred or thousand, there may not be enough doctors to separate the tasks of declaring an individual to be irreversibly brain damaged and performing the operations in question. Could this be changed to a recommendation? Or would that really kill this part of the resolution for you?"

Specifically, I was on about the film 'John Q' :-)

1
SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as bone marrow tissue, cord blood cells, embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

2 Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
3 SPECIFIES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:04 am

Eireann Fae wrote:"Our first concern here is that you're being too exacting with the definitions[1] laid out in the draft of this resolution. If you are so specific about what is included in the provisions of this law, we believe this leaves room for nations to leave certain essentials out. For example, what about beings wishing to donate skin, or a wing, or a body part not even completely understood by you or I? Would it not be simpler to allow the donation of any part of one's body, organic or otherwise?"

Is this not allowed under the present text?

Relevant quotes from the text:
SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following: <-- This allows for member nations to expand beyond what I have listed.
Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart. <-- As you say, I can hardly list everything that could possibly be donated. In part - character count issues! And, also, there are so many possibilities (skin, wing, etc.) that I may not think of. I believe that the use of "at minimum" and "such as" gives nations sufficient flexibility with regards to what can be donated (and be covered) under this proposal.

Eireann Fae wrote:"Secondly[2], what if the donor is willing to give their life to save another? One of your required tests would seem to exclude the possibility, but at the very least, I think many parents would willingly give their lives to prolong those of their children. Or a friend, or a sibling, or even simply someone that they feel could be a better benefit to the world than themselves. We realize this may be considered in one extreme to be assisted suicide, but nevertheless, believe that such a thing ought to be allowed. I recall hearing about a man that was willing to die so that his son may have his heart and live on"

I presume that you're referring to the "healthy enough for the procedure" clause, yes? If the procedure in question is assisted suicide for the purposes of saving my child, I see no reason why that would be outlawed by the current text. I don't feel that that clause should be removed due to potential concerns over what some more ... loophole-exploiting nations may do without it.

Eireann Fae wrote:"Finally, I do understand why you are asking for the separation of staff[3] here, but ask if you have considered that perhaps not all medical institutions, or indeed, nations, are suitably staffed to require such measures as outlined in the draft. In a small community of a few hundred or thousand, there may not be enough doctors to separate the tasks of declaring an individual to be irreversibly brain damaged and performing the operations in question. Could this be changed to a recommendation? Or would that really kill this part of the resolution for you?"

That clause was inserted due to concerns by some (on other off-site fora) that the medical staff may declare someone "brain dead" when they are not actually "brain dead" - merely to harvest their organs. I'll consider your thoughts on this matter - and, certainly, if others have feedback, I'd welcome it.

Your comments are greatly appreciated,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:22 pm

Updated draft!

BIOMEDICAL DONOR RIGHTS
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Description:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights and protections under WA law.

REALIZES that many donors of biomedical tissues often do so for altruistic reasons and get no personal benefit from the procedure.

WISHES to ensure that donors of biomedical tissues shall not be exploited or discriminated against in any way throughout the donation process.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as bone marrow tissue, cord blood cells, embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

DECLARES that prospective donors of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

REQUIRES that the donation process for biomedical procedures shall involve:
  1. Techniques that are as humane as is practicable using appropriate sterile technique for the procedure in question.
  2. Testing and typing of the donor and/or donated biomedical tissues in order to:
    1. Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
    2. Determine whether or not a disease or infection is present in the biomedical tissue.
    3. Simplify the matching of donated biomedical tissues with recipients so as to minimize negative transfusion reactions, biomedical tissue rejection, and the transference of disease or infection.
MANDATES that prospective donors shall be given all medically relevant facts regarding the biomedical procedure prior to obtaining their uncoerced, informed consent.
  1. Legally completed advance health care directives (e.g. living will) shall be followed in order to respect the wishes of the individual in question.
  2. In the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive, WA member nations may permit an individual's legal guardian or next-of-kin to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor in the event that the individual in question is under the threshold of majority or the individual in question is otherwise unable to understand the information and/or procedure.
RECOMMENDS that individual WA member nations adopt an opt-out system for biomedical tissue donation from irreversibly "brain dead" donors, in the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive.

SPECIFIES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

PERMITS WA Nations and their health care systems to delay or defer donation of biomedical tissues due to a donor's co-existing medical condition, which may place a potential recipient at risk; if such a medical condition exists, WA nations are urged to make all reasonable attempts at treatment so as to allow the donation to occur.

Character count: 3138

Further queries and critiques are welcome. Optimally, I'd be able to submit and campaign later this week ....

Thanks!
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Last edited by Mousebumples on Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:47 am

Separating staff is a good idea and should be kept. (OOC: In RL the UK NHS does this to ensure impartiality.) If your nation can't spare the workforce to do this then I respectfully suggest you have more important healthcare priorities to worry about than organ transplantation.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:11 am

Discoveria wrote:Separating staff is a good idea and should be kept. (OOC: In RL the UK NHS does this to ensure impartiality.) If your nation can't spare the workforce to do this then I respectfully suggest you have more important healthcare priorities to worry about than organ transplantation.

(OOC: In the US, the same is done to ensure the same.)

I'd hope that we'd have reasonable medical practitioners within all of our nations, so as to ensure that such biased decisions would not be made, but I feel that it helps to err on side of caution to ensure that the rights (and lives) of all donors are protected..
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:27 pm

(hopefully) Final Draft:

BIOMEDICAL DONOR RIGHTS
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Description:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights and protections under WA law.

REALIZES that many live donors of biomedical tissues often do so for altruistic reasons and may receive no personal benefit from the procedure.

WISHES to ensure that donors of biomedical tissues shall not be exploited or discriminated against in any way throughout the donation process.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells, those found in the bone marrow and the umbilical cord, and other adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

DECLARES that prospective donors of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

REQUIRES that the donation process for biomedical procedures shall involve:
  1. Techniques that are as humane as is practicable using appropriate sterile technique for the procedure in question.
  2. Testing and typing of the donor and donated biomedical tissues in order to:
    1. Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
    2. Determine whether or not a disease or infection is present in the biomedical tissue.
    3. Simplify the matching of donated biomedical tissues with recipients so as to minimize negative transfusion reactions, biomedical tissue rejection, and the transference of disease or infection.
MANDATES that prospective donors shall be given all medically relevant facts regarding the biomedical procedure prior to obtaining their uncoerced, informed consent.
  1. A legally completed advance health care directive (e.g. living will) shall be followed in order to respect the wishes of the individual in question.
  2. In the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive, WA member nations may permit an individual's legal guardian or next-of-kin to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor in the event that the individual in question is under the threshold of majority or is otherwise unable to understand the information in question.
RECOMMENDS that individual WA member nations adopt an opt-out system for biomedical tissue donation from irreversibly "brain dead" donors, in the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive.

DECREES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

PERMITS individual WA Nations and their health care systems to delay or defer donation of biomedical tissues due to a donor's co-existing medical condition, which may place a potential recipient at risk; if such a medical condition exists, WA nations are urged to make all reasonable attempts at treatment so as to allow the donation to occur.
Last edited by Mousebumples on Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:17 pm

This proposal has been submitted! Delegates, please approve!

So I've made a few more edits before submission because, well, I'm me. :P

And I went with Human Rights; Significant because I feel that this proposal strongly impacts a more narrow area, in case there were any questions there.

BIOMEDICAL DONOR RIGHTS
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed By: Mousebumples

Description:THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights and protections under WA law.

REALIZES that many live donors of biomedical tissues often are donors for altruistic reasons and may receive no personal benefit from the procedure.

WISHES to ensure that donors of biomedical tissues shall not be exploited or discriminated against in any way throughout the donation process.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as embryonic stem cells, those found in the bone marrow and the umbilical cord, and other adult stem cells.
DETAILS that "biomedical procedures" shall include, at minimum, the donation, harvesting, transplantation, or transfusion of biomedical tissues.

DECLARES that prospective donors of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

REQUIRES that the donation process for biomedical procedures shall involve:
  1. Techniques that are as humane as is practicable using appropriate sterile technique for the procedure in question.
  2. Testing and typing of the donor and donated biomedical tissues in order to:
    1. Ensure that the donor, if a living donor, is healthy enough to undergo the donation procedure.
    2. Determine whether or not a disease or infection is present in the biomedical tissue.
    3. Simplify the matching of donated biomedical tissues with recipients so as to minimize negative transfusion reactions, biomedical tissue rejection, and the transference of disease or infection.
MANDATES that prospective donors shall be given all medically relevant facts regarding the biomedical procedure prior to obtaining their uncoerced, informed consent.
  1. A legally completed advance health care directive (e.g. living will) shall be followed in order to respect the wishes of the individual in question.
  2. In the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive, WA member nations may permit an individual's legal guardian or next-of-kin to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor in the event that the individual in question is under the threshold of majority or is otherwise unable to understand the information in question.
RECOMMENDS that individual WA member nations adopt an opt-out system for biomedical tissue donation from irreversibly "brain dead" donors, in the absence of a legally completed advance health care directive.

DECREES that the medical staff that determines whether or not an individual is irreversibly "brain dead" shall not include members of the transplant staff and shall not be influenced to provide false declarations that an individual is irreversibly "brain dead."

PERMITS individual WA Nations and their health care systems to delay or defer donation of biomedical tissues due to a donor's co-existing medical condition, which may place a potential recipient at risk; if such a medical condition exists, WA nations are urged to make all reasonable attempts at treatment so as to allow the donation to occur.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Contrary to what the ambassador from Mousebumples promised, this proposal seems to countenance the donation of embryonic stem cells. I condemn her earlier lie, and I will cast a vote AGAINST this unethical proposal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Contrary to what the ambassador from Mousebumples promised, this proposal seems to countenance the donation of embryonic stem cells. I condemn her earlier lie, and I will cast a vote AGAINST this unethical proposal.

It ALLOWS (and accord protections for such procedures) but does not LEGALIZE or MANDATE embryonic stem cells. Such procedures are currently happening in my nation - as they were with Stem Cells for Greater Health in effect - so there's not really any change in this arena with the theoretical passage of this proposal.

If you disagree with that assessment, I'm curious to see what section you will quote or if you'll just continue with your habit of only reading the words and phrases that fit with your worldview.

EDIT: Would you rather that I had excluded embryonic stem cells from the protections of this proposal, which would have - essentially - permitted WA member nations/health systems to raid banks of stored/frozen embryos without any consent from the parents/guardians being required? Because if I hadn't included that within the list, that would have been the alternative.
Last edited by Mousebumples on Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:11 pm

Mousebumples wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Contrary to what the ambassador from Mousebumples promised, this proposal seems to countenance the donation of embryonic stem cells. I condemn her earlier lie, and I will cast a vote AGAINST this unethical proposal.

It ALLOWS (and accord protections for such procedures) but does not LEGALIZE or MANDATE embryonic stem cells. Such procedures are currently happening in my nation - as they were with Stem Cells for Greater Health in effect - so there's not really any change in this arena with the theoretical passage of this proposal.

If you disagree with that assessment, I'm curious to see what section you will quote or if you'll just continue with your habit of only reading the words and phrases that fit with your worldview.

I believe that your proposal provides legitimacy to the practice by acknowledging it along with "biomedical tissues" of actual medical benefit.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:13 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I believe that your proposal provides legitimacy to the practice by acknowledging it along with "biomedical tissues" of actual medical benefit.

And it is a legitimate medical practice, so ... yes?

You're still welcome to outlaw it within your nation. But you're only fooling yourself if you think that embryonic stem cell treatments were not being used in various Nation States prior to my drafting this proposal.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:16 pm

Mousebumples wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I believe that your proposal provides legitimacy to the practice by acknowledging it along with "biomedical tissues" of actual medical benefit.

And it is a legitimate medical practice, so ... yes?

You're still welcome to outlaw it within your nation. But you're only fooling yourself if you think that embryonic stem cell treatments were not being used in various Nation States prior to my drafting this proposal.

In the real world, at least, there are no medical benefits that can be derived from embryonic stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells are better, in large part, because they are not rejected by patients.

I took your earlier statements to mean that you would not legislate at all on embryonic stem cell research if Stem Cells For Greater Health were repealed.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:20 pm

I still don't get your point, CD. Why the heck would this be a problem? And remember, non-human physiologies need to be considered as well. And what's wrong with regulating those like other cell-based matter?

If you don't want to allow it, then that's your nation's call to make.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:31 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:In the real world, at least, there are no medical benefits that can be derived from embryonic stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells are better, in large part, because they are not rejected by patients.

Yes, but NS includes future tech nations that perhaps have greater healthcare advances than what we've seen IRL.

Christian Democrats wrote:I took your earlier statements to mean that you would not legislate at all on embryonic stem cell research if Stem Cells For Greater Health were repealed.

I see no reason to not afford the same rights to embryonic stem cell tissue (or their guardians) as is given to donors of other biomedical tissues. And since the "embryonic stem cell" portion of the "SPECIFIES" clause has been there since the first draft of all of my replacements, I don't know what gave you that impression. That thread and draft (posted on these forums August 1, 2012) contained the following phrasing:
SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:
  1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
  3. Stem cells, such as bone marrow tissue, cord blood cells, embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells.
Once more, I'm sorry if you made unfounded assumptions through misunderstanding my meaning in previous statements.

I have not, and WILL NOT legalized embryonic stem cell research in all WA member nations. I strongly feel that such a decision is one that should be made by each individual nation. However, I also strongly believe in ensuring that rights and protections (such as those covered in this proposal) are applied to all who deserve such protections.

If you are seriously suggesting that you'd rather I failed to mention embryonic stem cell research in the aformentioned clause, I suspect that you haven't thought through what that would mean as a result. That would mean that researchers/medical professionals could declare "Open Season!" on unused embryos from in vitro fertilization efforts. No consent would be required. Is that really the alternative that you'd prefer, compared to ensuring that the parents/guardians of such embryos are given the right to refuse to consent for treatment/research/etc.

Yours in continued bafflement,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5461
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:42 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I took your earlier statements to mean that you would not legislate at all on embryonic stem cell research if Stem Cells For Greater Health were repealed.

Would you mind providing the record of these statements?
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:45 am

Christian Democrats wrote:I took your earlier statements to mean that you would not legislate at all on embryonic stem cell research if Stem Cells For Greater Health were repealed.


"We wish to direct the attention of the ambassador from Christian Democrats to the draft of 'Biomedical Trade and Treatment', which will allow Christian Democrats to regulate embryonic stem cell research. It hardly seems fair to oppose Biomedical Donor Rights when the ambassador's concerns are directly addressed in Biomedical Trade and Treatment."

Biomedical Trade and Treatment wrote:LEGALIZES biomedical treatments within WA member nations, which shall include, at minimum:
  1. Stem cell research, stem cell harvesting, and stem cell donation.
  2. Donation and transfusion of blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
  3. Organ and tissue harvesting and transplantation.
GRANTS nations the authority to regulate the research and use of stem cells within their own borders except as otherwise specified by this legislation and extant international law.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:51 am

Here's a quick recap of what this proposal does (and, therefore, why you should vote IN FAVOR):
  • Ensures that individuals who wish to donate biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against.
  • Procedures used for donation will be done humanely with sterile technique.
  • Requires consent of the donors, and places a priority on following the wishes of individuals as stated in advance health care directives (i.e. a living will).
  • Separates the "declaring an individual as being brain dead" process from the transplant process, to avoid conflicts of interest and potentially biased/false declarations.

Provided that this stays at quorum between now and at the minor update, it should be at vote in a few hours. (OOC: I'll be at work, which is why I'm getting this post prepped now.)

Questions and concerns are welcome, and I'll try to respond as quickly as I'm able.

Thanks for your support!
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:04 am

Second to vote for it!

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:08 am

Knootoss wrote:Second to vote for it!

Exellent! Thanks for your support. :)
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
S-Mart
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Jul 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby S-Mart » Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:57 am

Mousebumples wrote:[*]Requires consent of the donors, and places a priority on following the wishes of individuals as stated in advance health care directives (i.e. a living will).


The proposal recommends an opt-out system of organ donation. Opt-out systems do not require the consent of donors, by definition. For this reason (primarily, though there are others) S-Mart opposes this legislation.

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12634
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:10 pm

The Two Jerseys concurs with S-Mart. The implementation of an opt-out program implies that harvesting the organs of braindead persons would be made mandatory; for this reason, we cannot offer our support to this legislation.
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads