NationStates

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

Category: Civil Rights| Strength: Mild

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

Recognizing that some restrictions exist upon certain minority groups, those of which are often not based in peer-reviewed science, and that beyond the obvious bigotry, they have a negative impact on the amount of blood that is able to be donated, meaning less people can receive the medical treatment that they may need, and that scientific developments have largely mitigated any risk that these restrictions may have once been based upon,

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following:

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

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

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.

If a prospective blood donor knows or suspects that they are a carrier for a blood-borne illness they can be prohibited from donating blood, and it shall be considered a criminal offense to knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood.

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.

Another proposal I've thought a bit about, not sure if it's something I'll seriously pursue, but thought I may as well post here in the case that I do want to move forward with it.

Here are the things that I specifically know I need help with:

1. I debated with myself between banning restrictions entirely or banning restrictions that imposed a time limit of over 3-4 months. I went with the total ban but am open to changing it.

2. Category / Area of Effect - no clue what this one would fall under, any help here would be appreciated.

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Our main concern is that previous WA consensus documents have emphasised that rights not be denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, rather than explicitly and categorically granting rights to homosexuals or transgender individuals (for instance). Our delegation has therefore... slapped together the following for your consideration; as usual, you may cite Tinhampton as a co-author if the ambassador thinks we've done a good job and so on:


OOC: yus!!! :pandalove:

Tinhampton wrote:Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Our main concern is that previous WA consensus documents have emphasised that rights not be denied to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, rather than explicitly and categorically granting rights to homosexuals or transgender individuals (for instance). Our delegation has therefore... slapped together the following for your consideration; as usual, you may cite Tinhampton as a co-author if the ambassador thinks we've done a good job and so on:

Noting that, despite the World Assembly's tireless work to strengthen minority rights and simplify the process of donating blood, it has room to improve in both of these areas,

Recognising that thoroughly unscientific restrictions on donating blood based solely on the donor's sexual history can unfairly disadvantage certain individuals (such as men who have sex with men, non-binary individuals and transgender women who have sex with men), which can prove detrimental both to the levels of blood that can be donated to blood banks and the ability of would-be blood recipients from receiving the medical treatment they need, and

Believing that the need to expand blood donation across the multiverse outweighs any increased risk that may be posed from accepting blood donations from such individuals, especially in light of recent scientific developments,

The General Assembly hereby forbids the imposition of any restriction upon the ability of any person to donate blood (including blood plasma) simply because of that individual's sexual orientation, sexual history or gender identity.

OOC: yus!!! :pandalove:

OOC: My concern here is that the issue isn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’s based on sexual activity. (Which I have realized I do need to improve on to cover all people who may be affected by such bans). It does have some implicit bias based upon orientation as the reasoning for these bans was a kneejerk and ill-informed response to the AIDS crisis. Since the bans target sexual activity, this ban-of-bans should as well. That does mean that in my opinion it falls under a different umbrella than the typical rights afforded by the GA to minorities, but I may be off there.

OOC:

1. I think you could cut the definition if you just reworded the second active clause to "No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of those who engage in same-sex intercourse, non-binary persons, or transgender people to donate blood based upon their sexual activity with men." Italicized is the rewording, bolding is for inclusivity, as is the strike. Alternatively you could just say "No restrictions may be placed upon eligibility for blood donation on the basis of sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity" and skip the definition entirely.

2. As for a category, there are a few that could work.

Civil Rights ---> Mild (Intriguing choice, if you view this as discrimination based solely on the basis of sexual identity/orientation/gender identity it could work.)
Health ---> Bioethics (If you view this as something dealing with medical ethics. Not sure.)
Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Hulldom wrote:OOC:

1. I think you could cut the definition if you just reworded the second active clause to "No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of those who engage in same-sex intercourse, non-binary persons, or transgender people to donate blood based upon their sexual activity with men." Italicized is the rewording, bolding is for inclusivity, as is the strike. Alternatively you could just say "No restrictions may be placed upon eligibility for blood donation on the basis of sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity" and skip the definition entirely.

2. As for a category, there are a few that could work.

Civil Rights ---> Mild (Intriguing choice, if you view this as discrimination based solely on the basis of sexual identity/orientation/gender identity it could work.)
Health ---> Bioethics (If you view this as something dealing with medical ethics. Not sure.)
Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

I like the second suggestion for the mandate, although I will probably tweak it a bit when I edit it in.

For right now based on your thoughts I'd *probably* keep this as health/healthcare as the mandate would extend to people who are not minorities (for exampe women can be affected if they've had intercourse with an MSM). But depending on where it goes I may change to civil rights.

Civil Rights proposals do not necessarily have to focus on the rights of minorities; see, for instance, Protecting Free Expression. Besides this, I have no concerns with the actual text of your proposal as it stands.

Crowheim wrote:

Hulldom wrote:OOC:

1. I think you could cut the definition if you just reworded the second active clause to "No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of those who engage in same-sex intercourse, non-binary persons, or transgender people to donate blood based upon their sexual activity with men." Italicized is the rewording, bolding is for inclusivity, as is the strike. Alternatively you could just say "No restrictions may be placed upon eligibility for blood donation on the basis of sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity" and skip the definition entirely.

2. As for a category, there are a few that could work.

Civil Rights ---> Mild (Intriguing choice, if you view this as discrimination based solely on the basis of sexual identity/orientation/gender identity it could work.)
Health ---> Bioethics (If you view this as something dealing with medical ethics. Not sure.)
Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

I like the second suggestion for the mandate, although I will probably tweak it a bit when I edit it in.

For right now based on your thoughts I'd *probably* keep this as health/healthcare as the mandate would extend to people who are not minorities (for exampe women can be affected if they've had intercourse with an MSM). But depending on where it goes I may change to civil rights.

I still think you need to include sexual orientation and gender identity (I don't have a clue what laws, if any, govern whether transgender people can donate blood and if so when and under what circumstances).According to the FDA's own guidance, it's a 3 month ban for sexually active gay men and women who also have relationships with sexually active gay men and here's a suggestion that some nations actually do discriminate against trans individuals in blood donation. The former is a pretty cut and dry case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in my opinion.

Tinhampton wrote:Civil Rights proposals do not necessarily have to focus on the rights of minorities; see, for instance, Protecting Free Expression. Besides this, I have no concerns with the actual text of your proposal as it stands.

Hulldom wrote:

Crowheim wrote:I like the second suggestion for the mandate, although I will probably tweak it a bit when I edit it in.

For right now based on your thoughts I'd *probably* keep this as health/healthcare as the mandate would extend to people who are not minorities (for exampe women can be affected if they've had intercourse with an MSM). But depending on where it goes I may change to civil rights.

I still think you need to include sexual orientation and gender identity (I don't have a clue what laws, if any, govern whether transgender people can donate blood and if so when and under what circumstances).According to the FDA's own guidance, it's a 3 month ban for sexually active gay men and women who also have relationships with sexually active gay men and here's a suggestion that some nations actually do discriminate against trans individuals in blood donation. The former is a pretty cut and dry case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in my opinion.

Noted to both, in that case I may tweak it a bit to fit that civil rights mantra more and change the classification.

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

"I believe the exclusion of the word "recent" from this mandate would be favourable. While it is of course even less logical to take into account a person's sexual activity in their distant past when deciding whether to permit them to donate blood, I do not believe that precludes member states with archaic views on sexual minorities from doing so.

"Overall, though, we are glad to see this proposal and are supportive of this effort."

"While I support the underlying principles of this proposal, I do think there are perfectly rational reasons for nations to not allow people who have engaged in sexual activity or who have received blood transfusions to donate blood. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that no distinction may be drawn on the grounds of sexual activity that was engaged in earlier than, say, two months before the blood was donated. As long as the requirement is applied equally (i.e. without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), I do not find it problematic."

You should definitely define “recent sexual activity” if someone gets an STD or AIDS it’s pretty obvious they shouldn’t donate blood

Barfleur wrote:"While I support the underlying principles of this proposal, I do think there are perfectly rational reasons for nations to not allow people who have engaged in sexual activity or who have received blood transfusions to donate blood. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that no distinction may be drawn on the grounds of sexual activity that was engaged in earlier than, say, two months before the blood was donated. As long as the requirement is applied equally (i.e. without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), I do not find it problematic."

“The issue at hand is that these restrictions are only ever applied to gay people even though others have similar risks of STDs at this point in time so your point doesn’t really land with me.”

Maowi wrote:

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

"I believe the exclusion of the word "recent" from this mandate would be favourable. While it is of course even less logical to take into account a person's sexual activity in their distant past when deciding whether to permit them to donate blood, I do not believe that precludes member states with archaic views on sexual minorities from doing so.

"Overall, though, we are glad to see this proposal and are supportive of this effort."

“Edited to fit your request.”

Edrace wrote:You should definitely define “recent sexual activity” if someone gets an STD or AIDS it’s pretty obvious they shouldn’t donate blood

I’ve explicitly put in an exception to allow a block on those with STDs, that should resolve the issue.

Unrelated: switched category and added a segment about the homophobic bias of these restrictions.

I strongly oppose this insane proposal.

Regardless of opinions on such activity, it is obvious that these restrictions were enacted for the purpose of protecting public health and preventing the spread of disease.

Deacarsia wrote:I strongly oppose this insane proposal.

Regardless of opinions on such activity, it is obvious that these restrictions were enacted for the purpose of protecting public health and preventing the spread of disease.

These restrictions were put in place as a knee-jerk and homophobic reaction the AIDS epidemic, and scientific developments and further information becoming available in recent years has effectively eliminated the need for these restrictions.

Hulldom wrote:Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Allowing people to donate blood doesn't expand healthcare directly. The specific area of effect is about 'governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people'.

---

As to the content, I'd prefer something which just would require that if you say 'safety', you have to apply such standards equally. I'd have to think about it though.

Crowheim wrote:

Barfleur wrote:"While I support the underlying principles of this proposal, I do think there are perfectly rational reasons for nations to not allow people who have engaged in sexual activity or who have received blood transfusions to donate blood. Perhaps it would be better to emphasize that no distinction may be drawn on the grounds of sexual activity that was engaged in earlier than, say, two months before the blood was donated. As long as the requirement is applied equally (i.e. without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation), I do not find it problematic."

“The issue at hand is that these restrictions are only ever applied to gay people even though others have similar risks of STDs at this point in time so your point doesn’t really land with me.”

"I meant, Ambassador, there are legitimate reasons to ban people who have had any sexual encounter, regardless of what gender they or their partner are, in the past month or so to protect against STDs. As long as the restrictions are applied to heterosexuals on the same conditions as they are to homosexuals, I see no problem."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Hulldom wrote:Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Allowing people to donate blood doesn't expand healthcare directly. The specific area of effect is about 'governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people'.

---

As to the content, I'd prefer something which just would require that if you say 'safety', you have to apply such standards equally. I'd have to think about it though.

Ah, my misunderstanding of what exactly that area of effect did then.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Hulldom wrote:Health ---> Healthcare (Arguably the one that makes the most sense if you view this as a health issue.)

Allowing people to donate blood doesn't expand healthcare directly. The specific area of effect is about 'governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people'.

---

As to the content, I'd prefer something which just would require that if you say 'safety', you have to apply such standards equally. I'd have to think about it though.

Interesting thought, I’ve tried to apply that concept in a small re-write now.

Bumped for more edits, would love to get further feedback.

OOC: My only issue that I can see is with the final line, which applies whether the prospective blood donor tested positive last week or twenty years ago - you might want to change that to "tests positive" in the present tense or something like that? Not entirely sure if that's the best option but thought I'd put it out there in case.

OOC: Unsafe sex of any kind with multiple partners bans you from blood donation over here. In RL. I always thought that was the gold standard everywhere given the point is to reduce chance of passing on fluid transmitted diseases.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Unsafe sex of any kind with multiple partners bans you from blood donation over here. In RL. I always thought that was the gold standard everywhere given the point is to reduce chance of passing on fluid transmitted diseases.

Unfortunately in other places (like here in America) the standard isn’t applied equally.

The second clause in the mandate should address that though

Also, addressed Maowi’s point.

Aiming to to submit this in a week and a half (the 20th, ideally.)

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