NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Organ and Blood Donations Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Organ and Blood Donations Act

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:33 pm

Image

ImageImage

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 175
Organ and Blood Donations Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Image Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Applauding modern medicine for saving countless lives by such means as organ transplantations and blood transfusions,

Believing there should be minimum safety standards in these areas,

Concerned that there are a number of false rumors about the donation of organs, tissues, and blood that decrease donation rates,

Recognizing that low rates of organ, tissue, and blood donations can increase the mortality rates of member states,

Convinced that promotion of the inalienable right to life and the right to health necessitate measures that benefit public health,

Seeking to protect, enhance, and extend the lives of the people of member states,

1. Legalizes the donation, transplantation, and transfusion of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof in all member states;

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;

3. Urges every member state to adopt an opt-out system of post-mortem organ donation, or organ harvesting;

4. Mandates the use of sterile needles for all blood donations and transfusions;

5. Orders that compatibility testing be done regarding all blood donations and transfusions in order to prevent negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types;

6. Requires that all donated blood, organs, tissues, and components thereof be tested for transferable infections and diseases;

7. Forbids transplantation or transfusion of infected and/or diseased blood, organs, tissues, or components thereof from one person (a donor) to another person (a recipient);

8. Decrees that every member state shall enact legislation establishing minimum safety standards for the storage of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof;

9. Encourages the healthcare systems of member states to donate surpluses of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof to other nations;

10. Directs the World Health Authority to make information about organ, tissue, and blood donations available to the people of member states in order to dispel any false rumors that may reduce donation rates; and

11. Calls upon the World Health Authority to promote research regarding artificial blood and organs.

SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 14, 2011

REACHED QUORUM ON DECEMBER 15, 2011

VOTING BEGAN ON DECEMBER 19, 2011

PASSED 7,954 TO 3,791 ON DECEMBER 23, 2011
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:36 am, edited 16 times in total.
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
Sovreignry
Diplomat
 
Posts: 763
Founded: Sep 14, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Sovreignry » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:43 pm

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.
Last edited by Sovreignry on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the desk of
William Chocox Ambassador from The Unitary Kingdom of Sovreignry
Office 50, fifth floor, farthest from the elevator
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. -Ardchoille
It would be easier just to incorporate a "Grief Region" button, so you wouldn't even need to make the effort to do the actual raiding. Players could just bounce from region to region and destroy everyone else's efforts at will, without even bothering about WA status. Wouldn't that be nice. -Frisbeeteria

Why yes, we are better looking: UDL

User avatar
Soviet Canuckistan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5025
Founded: Oct 16, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Soviet Canuckistan » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:09 pm

I like it and this raises a good point.
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49

Minecrafters Unite!: Minecraftia
Serve NationStates, Serve Liberty: UDL

Senator Anastasia Bellefontaine of the Christian People's Congress

User avatar
Puissancevise
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Puissancevise » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:47 pm

I oppose it very strongly. Organ donation is compulsory in The Democratic States of Puissancevise. No organs wasted. Rather then burying corpses in the ground, taking up large amounts of land, the organs are taken and the bodies are cremated. A corpse is a corpse. There are several member nations that would also agree and would oppose this resolution due to the prohibition of mandatory organ donation.
President Desmond Salirne
"We, humanity, shall live free."
Puissancevise Factbook

User avatar
Eternal Yerushalayim
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5087
Founded: Mar 14, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eternal Yerushalayim » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:58 pm

Tentative support.
"The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."-Margaret Thatcher
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. " -Saint Augustine
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."-Albert Einstein
"The first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is curiosity." -Edmund Burke

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5442
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:28 am

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?
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
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18617
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:44 am

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?
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:17 am

"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."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Southern Patriots
Senator
 
Posts: 4624
Founded: Apr 19, 2004
New York Times Democracy

Postby Southern Patriots » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:37 am

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?"

Remember Rhodesia.

On Robert Mugabe:
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:He was a former schoolteacher.

I do hope it wasn't in economics.

Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.

Ceannairceach wrote:
Archnar wrote:The Russian Revolution showed a revolution could occure in a quick bloadless and painless process (Nobody was seriously injured or killed).

I doth protest in the name of the Russian Imperial family!
(WIP)

User avatar
Dilange
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7074
Founded: Mar 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Dilange » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:44 am

Puissancevise wrote:I oppose it very strongly. Organ donation is compulsory in The Democratic States of Puissancevise. No organs wasted. Rather then burying corpses in the ground, taking up large amounts of land, the organs are taken and the bodies are cremated. A corpse is a corpse. There are several member nations that would also agree and would oppose this resolution due to the prohibition of mandatory organ donation.


If its compulsory in your nation then you might have some problems....such as diseases. STDs and genetic disease can transfer from these donated organs into the possible patients causing the same diseases and even death. I think mandatory organ donation is okay to practice but just keep it safe.

I suggest that we organize testing to see if a donator has certain transferable diseases before donation. If they have any of the diseases, they will; be refused to donate.

-Dr. Photios Benlasha M.D. Ph.D.
WA Staffer of the Grand Jewish Order
Former Chairman of Medicar Technologies.
Ex-President of Namisburrow

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

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:30 pm

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

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:09 pm

Dilange wrote:I suggest that we organize testing to see if a donator has certain transferable diseases before donation. If they have any of the diseases, they will; be refused to donate.

I've altered the proposal, and the mandatory testing provision that applied to donated blood has been extended to cover organs and tissues.
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
Sovreignry
Diplomat
 
Posts: 763
Founded: Sep 14, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Sovreignry » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:34 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
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.


My bad. For some reason I thought it was a mandatory clause not and urge clause. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.
From the desk of
William Chocox Ambassador from The Unitary Kingdom of Sovreignry
Office 50, fifth floor, farthest from the elevator
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. -Ardchoille
It would be easier just to incorporate a "Grief Region" button, so you wouldn't even need to make the effort to do the actual raiding. Players could just bounce from region to region and destroy everyone else's efforts at will, without even bothering about WA status. Wouldn't that be nice. -Frisbeeteria

Why yes, we are better looking: UDL

User avatar
Reverend Lyndon Love
Attaché
 
Posts: 74
Founded: Nov 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Reverend Lyndon Love » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:43 pm

Well I've prayed on this and I think this is a resolution that I could give my support to. I'll be keeping an eye on the discussions for further developments.
The Worldwide Ministry Of Reverend Lyndon Love

Matthew 28:16-20

User avatar
Puissancevise
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Puissancevise » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:59 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
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?


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;


There.
President Desmond Salirne
"We, humanity, shall live free."
Puissancevise Factbook

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

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:18 pm

Puissancevise wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:
Where is there a ban on compulsory organ harvesting in this proposal?


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;


There.

:o You steal organs from live patients!!!
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
Puissancevise
Diplomat
 
Posts: 972
Founded: Sep 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Puissancevise » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:27 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Puissancevise wrote:


There.

:o You steal organs from live patients!!!


Oh. Missed this part:

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;
President Desmond Salirne
"We, humanity, shall live free."
Puissancevise Factbook

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:53 am

We support this proposal.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

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

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:03 pm

I've changed this proposal's category to "social justice" because this category "increases government spending on . . . healthcare" (Rules for GA Proposals). The "social justice" category is for proposals that "increase basic welfare." I believe a public health proposal falls in this realm.

Also, I've changed the strength to "significant." Proposals of this strength should "affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area" (Rules for GA Proposals). This proposal affects donations and storage of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof; organ transplantations; blood transfusions; rumors regarding donation; consent issues; testing; research into artificial blood and organs; etc.

Does anyone not agree with either of these changes? Should the proposal strength be "strong"? Do any of you have other suggestions?
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
Kilel
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 166
Founded: Sep 16, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kilel » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:08 pm

Uh... just out of curiosity... wouldn't this resolution be more geared towards medical spending and less towards human rights (though it does include human rights as well..)?

EDIT: Uh... I think my question was just answered before I could post :|
Last edited by Kilel on Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't even play this game anymore lol

User avatar
Morlago
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1396
Founded: Jun 22, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Morlago » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:20 am

Full support.
Angelo Gervoski
Minister of WA Affairs of
The United Islands of Morlago
Yë Morre Waidamün i Mórlago

DEFCON: 1 2 (Low) 3 4 5 6


Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Graph
Center-left social moderate.
Left: 2.2, Libertarian: 0.75
Foreign Policy: -6.11 (Non-interventionalist)
Culture: -6.31 (Cultural liberal)

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

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:13 am

Proposal submitted. A telegram campaign will be launched later today.
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
Frenequesta
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9020
Founded: Oct 22, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Frenequesta » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:16 am

Perhaps this has already been brought up, but should we read the clause about post-mortem donations as to require (yes, I know it says "urges") a state to use a individual's organs after their death unless otherwise explicitly expressed by an individual not to use them?
Your friendly neighborhood Pseudo-Communtarian Quasi-Utilitarian Rawlsian Liberal Equestrian Harmonist. And a bit of a technocrat on top of all that. I also play piano and aspire to practice law.
Information Asymmetry.
Frenequesta Overview (WIP; in need of overhaul)|Frenequesta Inquiries Office|New Embassy Exchange coming soon eventually.
My IC posts prior to 11/25/2017 may no longer reflect my nation. Please inquire about any discrepancies.

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

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:19 am

Frenequesta wrote:Perhaps this has already been brought up, but should we read the clause about post-mortem donations as to require (yes, I know it says "urges") a state to use a individual's organs after their death unless otherwise explicitly expressed by an individual not to use them?

Yes, that's the sort of system this proposal urges member states to adopt.

EDIT: It's a nonmandatory clause.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Frenequesta
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9020
Founded: Oct 22, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Frenequesta » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:36 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Frenequesta wrote:Perhaps this has already been brought up, but should we read the clause about post-mortem donations as to require (yes, I know it says "urges") a state to use a individual's organs after their death unless otherwise explicitly expressed by an individual not to use them?

Yes, that's the sort of system this proposal urges member states to adopt.

EDIT: It's a nonmandatory clause.


That's why I said "I know it says 'urges'". In any case, Frenequesta's organ shortage (which this proposal presumes) is almost non-existent since we can grow organs easily in culture, and the completely voluntary nature of organ donation at least on the federal level is premised on this, but since you assert that the post-mortem clause is nonmandatory we can give our support.

However, in light of our ability to grow organs, we express another concern. Is the international donation clause intended to limit nations to only donating organs to other nations, or can we sell our surplus organs since that is not directly covered by the proposal?
Last edited by Frenequesta on Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
Your friendly neighborhood Pseudo-Communtarian Quasi-Utilitarian Rawlsian Liberal Equestrian Harmonist. And a bit of a technocrat on top of all that. I also play piano and aspire to practice law.
Information Asymmetry.
Frenequesta Overview (WIP; in need of overhaul)|Frenequesta Inquiries Office|New Embassy Exchange coming soon eventually.
My IC posts prior to 11/25/2017 may no longer reflect my nation. Please inquire about any discrepancies.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads