[DRAFT] Repeal "Blood Donation Safety Etc"

[The Ice States]

Ooc: let me stop you right there. The relevant part of the resolution specifically refers to "unsafe blood". It The adjective "unsafe" is attached specifically to the word "blood". If the resolution said "blood stored or used unsafely", I would agree with you.

Right, but blood that is stored and used correctly isn't unsafe even if it is "inherently" unsafe. So the blood is safe, even if it would otherwise be unsafe if it wasn't stored correctly.

Your interpretation would effectively make the donor criminally liable for the people responsible for handling the blood's failure to be safe in its use. Which would be an absurd interpretation, cf the obvious and certainly intended one: it is a criminal offence to donate blood one knows carries a blood-borne disease.

As GenSec has unanimously marked this legal -- the above arguments notwithstanding -- I will submit again with a campaign telegram shortly this has been submitted.

[North Guildia]

In the "Perplexed" clause, it says that the original resolution expresses a "need for prohibiting those who merely suspect that they have a blood-borne illness from donating blood" but that's not what the original says. GA#546 says that people who suspect they may be carrying a blood-borne illness "may" be prohibited. While I agree with this resolution in principle, there are sections of it that may be minor but should've been worded more accurately. Given this fact, I'm torn on how to vote.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

In the "Perplexed" clause, it says that the original resolution expresses a "need for prohibiting those who merely suspect that they have a blood-borne illness from donating blood" but that's not what the original says. GA#546 says that people who suspect they may be carrying a blood-borne illness "may" be prohibited. While I agree with this resolution in principle, there are sections of it that may be minor but should've been worded more accurately. Given this fact, I'm torn on how to vote.

"That's not what the clause in question means -- it is intended to express that there is no real need to prohibit those who suspect they have a blood-borne illness from donating, and the resolution's mandate is therefore nonsensical."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"The mission has withdrawn this draft for changes to improve clarity and rework most of the draft. Feedback remains welcome."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"The Duke remains, uh, on leave right now, so I'm the temporary ambassador to the World Assembly for now."

The ambassador points to a newly-created portal, and adds, "Anyway, the mission has opted to resubmit this. Delegates may use this portal to register their approval."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
Senior Staffer of the Ice World Assembly mission,
Temporary World Assembly Ambassador in the absence of Duke Vliet,
The Empire of The Ice States

[WayNeacTia]

"Opposed. The resolution does exactly what it needs to do and nothing more. All of the arguments stretch reality to the breaking point, simply for a chance at a repeal and replace....."

Wayne

[Tinhampton]

This was withdrawn again; it would have gone to vote on Monday minor. Why?

[The Ice States]

This was withdrawn again; it would have gone to vote on Monday minor. Why?

Ooc: It seems unlikely to pass at this time, so I am putting work on it on hold for the time being.

[Tinhampton]

This was withdrawn again; it would have gone to vote on Monday minor. Why?

Ooc: It seems unlikely to pass at this time, so I am putting work on it on hold for the time being.

I've gotten twelve defeated resolutions to vote in the GA. Include co-authorships and that's 16. Add the SC and you get 26 all told over a span of five-and-a-half years. Failure is perfectly okay - even IA did it last year. Past generations of authors have been completely okay with letting proposals of questionable popularity get to vote in the hopes that it might pass the vote, which makes the new trend of saying "I don't think its feasible" more concerning than I originally suspected.

Regions are increasingly becoming either less transparent or more minded to associate their delegate's vote with the regional vote than they were when I started out; even TNP, where this one was taking a hammering, sometimes recommends alongside all of WALL rather than based on the forum vote, although this trend has slowed under Chipoli. In any event, IFVs (especially against) are much more informative than most forumside reasonings - although Simone Republic made a good point. (They can even help you improve proposals in redrafting and - from personal experience - write different, better ones.)

The blanket diseased-blood ban is - at least in my opinion - a good argument. The point about instadiscarded blood is much worse: just because BDSEA itself does not ban it does not mean a future resolution working within the confines of BDSEA cannot ban it later. At the time BDSEA was at vote, TNP criticised it because it failed to take into account that blood would be screened for diseases and diseased blood would thus not be injected into unsuspecting recipients.

There is nothing to say a repeal of BDSEA cannot be written - but it will have to be drafted for longer and make better arguments than you have made here. You may want to leave BDO to sit for some time too so that people aren't confused as to what it actually says.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: This will be submitted only if -- and after -- the BDOA passes, after conversation with Tinhampton. The draft has been rewritten accordingly.