[PASSED] Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

[Crowheim]

OOC: This is a fictional roleplaying world. If you want to fix politics in some RL country go sign a petition or something.

So... by that logic no real-world issues would be allowed to carry over into the WA? If it happens in real life, chances are it can happen in the NSverse, and it is still fair game for a GAR, from my point of view.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Admitting that there is a slightly greater risk associated with blood donations from the targeted groups, but asserting that the need for donations outweighs this risk, which has largely been mitigated by scientific developments in recent years,

“We note that scientific development is not equal everywhere, and so the assertion that the risk has been sufficiently mitigated is a judgment that, if one accepts it as true in the context of the The Chipmunk Caliphate of Crowheim, one need not necessarily accept it in other contexts. As a result, this may introduce policy biased towards richer nations. How does the Hon Ambassador plan to address such concerns which inevitably will arise?”

Santino Toscani
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Crowheim]

Admitting that there is a slightly greater risk associated with blood donations from the targeted groups, but asserting that the need for donations outweighs this risk, which has largely been mitigated by scientific developments in recent years,

“We note that scientific development is not equal everywhere, and so the assertion that the risk has been sufficiently mitigated is a judgment that, if one accepts it as true in the context of the The Chipmunk Caliphate of Crowheim, one need not necessarily accept it in other contexts. As a result, this may introduce policy biased towards richer nations. How does the Hon Ambassador plan to address such concerns which inevitably will arise?”

Santino Toscani
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

“Perhaps a commission dedicated to distributing and sharing these advancements in science should be added?”

[Crowheim]

Added a commission clause, would love more feedback here

[Tinhampton]

Added a commission clause, would love more feedback here

The obvious bit of feedback: why? ;P

[Crowheim]

Added a commission clause, would love more feedback here

The obvious bit of feedback: why? ;P

It's an issue that allows an entire population to be excluded from helping others because of their sexuality, based upon some faulty science. This ban should resolve that inate discrimination while keeping blood donations safe.

[Mancheseva City]

If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood.

I think this still might be misconstrued as allowing someone who once tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection to be prohibited from donating blood forever. But not all infections are permanent, so I would add something like

"If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection"

Or something of similar nature, not sure how to word it perfectly

Overall of course I fully support it, a much-needed piece of legislation.

[Crowheim]

Thank you Seva, edited.

[Ardiveds]

Added a commission clause, would love more feedback here

The obvious bit of feedback: why? ;P

OOC: No offense Tin but one of your drafts was about making dictionaries inoffensive so...

If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood.

I think this still might be misconstrued as allowing someone who once tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection to be prohibited from donating blood forever. But not all infections are permanent, so I would add something like

"If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection"

Or something of similar nature, not sure how to word it perfectly

OOC: How about:

"If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood unless a relevant medical professional can verify that the person is no longer infected with said STI"

[Crowheim]

The obvious bit of feedback: why? ;P

OOC: No offense Tin but one of your drafts was about making dictionaries inoffensive so...

I think this still might be misconstrued as allowing someone who once tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection to be prohibited from donating blood forever. But not all infections are permanent, so I would add something like

"If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection"

Or something of similar nature, not sure how to word it perfectly

OOC: How about:

"If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood unless a relevant medical professional can verify that the person is no longer infected with said STI"

It's wordier but I'm not sure it adds much to the proposal.

[Araraukar]

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their sexual activity.

OOC: This continues to defy all logic. Sexual activity (whether you practice safe sex or not) is exactly what the restrictions should be placed on. As well as any other action or activity that might carry the risk of contracting a blood-borne disease, like using intravenous injection drugs or having recently traveled to a nation where there's an epidemic of such a disease. That's how it works in RL.

Remember that the restrictions exist to make the blood products safe to the people into whom they're going to be injected in.

You could simply say that blood donors must not be banned from donating blood based on their sex, gender, race, religion, nationality, sexuality (and whatever else you want to add for non-discrimination). But you COULD specifically allow restrictions placed on donors based on their age (letting only adults donate blood is generally a good idea), state of health (not just blood-borne diseases, but a whole host of other reasons as well (like too low hemoglobin), and cases where it's not safe to stick a thick needle into someone's vein like with clotting issues) and general restrictions as laid out by authorities (like, if there's a general curfew to try to stop a serious epidemic, or war going on, or whatever).

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donors donations, the standards must be applied equally to all donors.

Because of the reason for the restrictions, changes and additions in red. (Felt like an appropriate colour. )

If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection.

That too is kinda odd as it should be common sense. Maybe instead make it illegal to donate blood if one knows or suspects they have a blood-borne disease? (And please for the love of little green lizards make it "blood-borne disease" instead of whatever wording of STI, because focusing solely on STIs makes no sense.)

The World Assembly shall establish a commission dedicated to sharing scientific advancements related to sexually transmitted infections and blood donation across member states, as to mitigate any risk of contaminated blood.

Any reason you couldn't use WASP for this? Sharing scientific info is pretty much what the committee is for.

[Crowheim]

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their sexual activity.

OOC: This continues to defy all logic. Sexual activity (whether you practice safe sex or not) is exactly what the restrictions should be placed on. As well as any other action or activity that might carry the risk of contracting a blood-borne disease, like using intravenous injection drugs or having recently traveled to a nation where there's an epidemic of such a disease. That's how it works in RL.

Remember that the restrictions exist to make the blood products safe to the people into whom they're going to be injected in.

You could simply say that blood donors must not be banned from donating blood based on their sex, gender, race, religion, nationality, sexuality (and whatever else you want to add for non-discrimination). But you COULD specifically allow restrictions placed on donors based on their age (letting only adults donate blood is generally a good idea), state of health (not just blood-borne diseases, but a whole host of other reasons as well (like too low hemoglobin), and cases where it's not safe to stick a thick needle into someone's vein like with clotting issues) and general restrictions as laid out by authorities (like, if there's a general curfew to try to stop a serious epidemic, or war going on, or whatever).

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donors donations, the standards must be applied equally to all donors.

Because of the reason for the restrictions, changes and additions in red. (Felt like an appropriate colour. )

If a prospective blood donor tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection they may be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection.

That too is kinda odd as it should be common sense. Maybe instead make it illegal to donate blood if one knows or suspects they have a blood-borne disease? (And please for the love of little green lizards make it "blood-borne disease" instead of whatever wording of STI, because focusing solely on STIs makes no sense.)

The World Assembly shall establish a commission dedicated to sharing scientific advancements related to sexually transmitted infections and blood donation across member states, as to mitigate any risk of contaminated blood.

Any reason you couldn't use WASP for this? Sharing scientific info is pretty much what the committee is for.

Thank you for the feedback, I've tried to make edits to reflect these notes as best as I could.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: Do consider the... following alteration to Arti... I mean Sentence 1:

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other factor which could be deemed discriminatory having or lacking any arbitrary, reductive characteristic.

Smith: "blood donors donations" in Sentence 2 should also have an apostrophe somewhere.

[Crowheim]

Smith: Do consider the... following alteration to Arti... I mean Sentence 1:

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other factor which could be deemed discriminatory having or lacking any arbitrary, reductive characteristic.

Smith: "blood donors donations" in Sentence 2 should also have an apostrophe somewhere.

OOC: Taken your suggestion to some extent.

[Crowheim]

Edited to suggestions from Discord.

In essence I reduced the size of the preamble and made some tweaks to that.

[Crowheim]

Last call, planning to submit tomorrow.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Has wording issues still, don't submit. Is inconsistent now. Won't be on computer until tomorrow.

[Crowheim]

OOC: Has wording issues still, don't submit. Is inconsistent now. Won't be on computer until tomorrow.

Noted, I'll wait for your input before doing so.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Lauding previous efforts by the World Assembly to both increase the efficiency of the blood donation process and increase the rights of minorities,

Can you give me the link to the resolution(s) that "increase the efficiency of blood donation process"?

Recognizing that some restrictions exist upon certain minority groups, those of which are often not based in solidified or corroborated peer-reviewed science, and that they have a negative impact on the amount of blood that is able to be donated to blood banks, meaning less fewer people can receive the medical treatment that they may need,

The underlined bit is very clumsily worded, and the whole clause would benefit from a rewrittal.

Recalling the fact that many of these restrictions were put in place as a knee-jerk reaction to a poorly understood epidemic, and that there is an implicit bigotry in these restrictions remaining in place, especially given recent developments in this field largely mitigating any associated risk,

Epidemic? Also, I don't quite get the point of this? You should consider combining this and the previous one.

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following:

Numbering the active clauses that come after this, would make it a bit clearer at a first glance which ones are mandates.

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other reductive or arbitrary characteristic.

You might reword a bit of that as "to voluntarily donate blood".

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donors donations, the standards of safety must be applied equally to all donors.

This was pointed out before but you didn't fix it.

A person may be prohibited from donating blood if there are notable risks to the donor's health involved in the process of blood donation or their blood would pose a health risk to the recipient.

I can't donate blood in RL because of my medication - since the medication stays in my blood for a prolonged time (basically continuously), my blood would not be safe for a recipient not in need of said meds. I don't have a blood-borne disease, I have a blood-carried medication.

If a prospective blood donor tests positive for knows or suspects they are a carrier of a blood-borne illness they must be can be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection, and it shall be considered a criminal offense to attempt to donate unsafe blood while knowing that one has or may have a blood-borne illness.

Existing scientific committees created by this body shall be utilized to share information related to blood-borne illnesses and blood donation across member states, as to mitigate any risk of contaminated blood. Encouraging member nations to share scientific information about blood-borne illnesses.

No need to involve committees. In general (even with the rewrite) this last clause looks a bit out of place, as you don't require any research to be done.

[Crowheim]

OOC post.

Lauding previous efforts by the World Assembly to both increase the efficiency of the blood donation process and increase the rights of minorities,

Can you give me the link to the resolution(s) that "increase the efficiency of blood donation process"?

Recognizing that some restrictions exist upon certain minority groups, those of which are often not based in solidified or corroborated peer-reviewed science, and that they have a negative impact on the amount of blood that is able to be donated to blood banks, meaning less fewer people can receive the medical treatment that they may need,

The underlined bit is very clumsily worded, and the whole clause would benefit from a rewrittal.

Recalling the fact that many of these restrictions were put in place as a knee-jerk reaction to a poorly understood epidemic, and that there is an implicit bigotry in these restrictions remaining in place, especially given recent developments in this field largely mitigating any associated risk,

Epidemic? Also, I don't quite get the point of this? You should consider combining this and the previous one.

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following:

Numbering the active clauses that come after this, would make it a bit clearer at a first glance which ones are mandates.

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to donate blood based solely upon their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other reductive or arbitrary characteristic.

You might reword a bit of that as "to voluntarily donate blood".

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donors donations, the standards of safety must be applied equally to all donors.

This was pointed out before but you didn't fix it.

A person may be prohibited from donating blood if there are notable risks to the donor's health involved in the process of blood donation or their blood would pose a health risk to the recipient.

I can't donate blood in RL because of my medication - since the medication stays in my blood for a prolonged time (basically continuously), my blood would not be safe for a recipient not in need of said meds. I don't have a blood-borne disease, I have a blood-carried medication.

If a prospective blood donor tests positive for knows or suspects they are a carrier of a blood-borne illness they must be can be prohibited from donating blood for the duration of the infection, and it shall be considered a criminal offense to attempt to donate unsafe blood while knowing that one has or may have a blood-borne illness.

Existing scientific committees created by this body shall be utilized to share information related to blood-borne illnesses and blood donation across member states, as to mitigate any risk of contaminated blood. Encouraging member nations to share scientific information about blood-borne illnesses.

No need to involve committees. In general (even with the rewrite) this last clause looks a bit out of place, as you don't require any research to be done.

Edits made, to give time for any more last minute ones I'll refrain from submitting until the end of the day.

(Previous resolutions on blood donation are 217-219.)

[Crowheim]

Submitted.

[Jedinsto]

Change the status to [SUBMITTED]

[PotatoFarmers]

Took a first glance. Is it possible to explain why you chose to use the phrase "reductive or arbitrary characteristic" in clause 1? Or rather, what do you mean by it?

For the second clause, I am dissapointed that the author didn't use the opportunity to enact regulations that would help in ensuring safety of the blood donation process, especially since the title is "Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act"

The fourth clause is okay, but I think a better wording could help in improving the clarity. Right now, it is particularly mouthful and difficult to understand.

[Ardiveds]

Took a first glance. Is it possible to explain why you chose to use the phrase "reductive or arbitrary characteristic" in clause 1? Or rather, what do you mean by it?

OOC: Reductive or arbitrary characteristics include but aren't limited to: culture, relgion, gender, sex, sexual orientation, random genetic characteristics (blue eyes, red hair etc) ethnicity, race etc....

[Araraukar]

Took a first glance. Is it possible to explain why you chose to use the phrase "reductive or arbitrary characteristic" in clause 1? Or rather, what do you mean by it?

OOC: It's used in the Charter of Civil Rights, which is the most important anti-discriminatory resolution currently in existence. Basically it means that you can't exclude people with blue eyes or people who are left-handed and so forth, that don't fit into the list of examples given.