[DEFEATED] Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: I said about 6 months ago I'd be back to deal with this problematic resolution, and thus: Here I am.

IC: Ladies, Gentlemen and Others of the World Assembly.

GA #175 puts barriers between doctors and their responsibilities to their patients. By restricting donations to informed consent only, and failing to put any definition on the term "living" it restricts all donations to either conscious or dead patients. While this may seem to make sense, it in fact reduces the quantity and viability of donated organs considerably. All organs transplants have a much lower rate of success when the organs are taken from a non-living patient. Hearts in particular are almost impossible to transplant successfully from a subject that has already died. In cases of brain death but not actual death, local laws and the will of the next of kin should be respected, rather than the hamfisted rules of this resolution.

It also, rather short-sightedly, requires compatibility testing before any blood transfusion can be started. While compatibility testing should almost certainly be done, to provide the highest quality of care in cases of emergency, the medical staff should have the option to use universal donor blood. This resolution goes beyond the simple problem of being wrong, it is actually killing people in our nations. I know the WA can put together a better resolution. I know that this one must go before that can happen. Help me improve this repeal, so we can put GA #175 in the past. Together the WA can then create a resolution that doesn't cost lives, but rather saves them.

Acknowledging the principles this resolution asks us to observe and admiring its intentions,

Noting that the informed consent of a subject is impossible to acquire in the case of brain death but not actual death,

Also noting that postmortem donation of hearts is nearly impossible,

Supporting the right of next-of kin to have viable options to enforce the wishes of their loved ones in cases of brain death,

Seeking to expand the availability and viability of organs provided by still living but brain dead patients with consent of next-of-kin,

Regretting the lack of exception in compatibility testing for emergency universal donor blood transfusion,

Wishing that, in cases of emergency, universal donor blood could be used without compatibility testing and it's accompanied delay in care,

Feeling that patients in WA Member Nations deserve a higher quality of transplants and transfusions than what is currently allowed under this resolution,

Hoping to present the World Assembly an opportunity to pass a more open version of this resolution that is mindful of best medical practices,

Hereby repeals "Organ and Blood Donation Act".

[Christian Democrats]

This repeal proposal is full of lies about the original resolution; therefore, I have filed a challenge for it to be removed.

[Bergnovinaia]

This repeal proposal is full of lies about the original resolution; therefore, I have filed a challenge for it to be removed.

The WA ambassador from Bergnovinaia, Ms. Thekenbail, arose out of her chair after quickly re-reading the proposal. "I feel," she started, "that I am obligated to agree with the ambassador from the Christian Democrat seat. Initially, Bergnovinaia was persuaded that the author's intent in this repeal merited our nation's coveted approval. However, we have been enlightened, upon re-read, that the author is using scandalous, duplicitous tactics to fool this honorable assembly into repealing a vital piece of legislation. We applaud the ambassador from Christian Democrats diligence in this matter and filing for its removal."

[Chevalbourg]

First of all, I would like to thank the Dourian delegate for their views on this issue; clearly, they stand for the best interests of patients in need of organ donations. I would first like to direct their attention to a similar proposal, of which the Dourian delegate may or may not be aware of.

Although we wouldn't go as far as to claim you have misrepresented the GA Resolution #175, the resolution that the Dourian delegate seeks to repeal, there are still a few issues that need to be considered before the Chevalbourgish delegation declares a stance on this, favourably or unfavourably.

Noting that the informed consent of a subject is impossible to acquire in the case of brain death but not actual death,

The GA Resolution #175 does not prohibit the subject to give informed consent prior to brain death; indeed, most countries that opt for a voluntary organ donor system allow the subject to give prior informed consent in the case of brain death. Informed consent of a subject, therefore, is possible to acquire in the cases of brain death, clinical death, or legal death, so this reason no longer stands.

Of course, there are cases when a subject has not given prior informed consent before an incident that causes brain death. In that case, a medical professional (in Chevalbourg, anyway) is required to perform all "in the best interests of the patient". However, should all treatment be exhausted and the state of brain death be irreversible, then it falls on the victim's next-of-kin or immediate family members to make the decision to continue to place the victim on life support, or to give consent in place of the victim to organ donation. You cannot rely on miracles in medicine.

Also noting that postmortem donation of hearts is nearly impossible,

It is widely understood that the best condition for organs is in a brain-dead patient, where the body is, to a certain level, still functioning.

However, the post-mortem donation of a full or a part of an organ, such as the lung or kidney, is possible and a widely-recognised medical practice. The same goes for tissue, stem cells, blood and platelets, which allow for post-mortem donation with little or no impact.

Furthermore, although the GA Resolution #175 "urges every member state to adopt an opt-out system of post-mortem organ donation", it by no means requires every member state to do so, and given the benefits of other post-mortem donations, we fail to see how this would be a valid reason for a repeal, and therefore strongly urge the Dourian delegate to reconsider their opinions on this matter.

Supporting the right of next-of kin to have viable options to enforce the wishes of their loved ones in cases of brain death,

Seeking to expand the availability and viability of organs provided by still living but brain dead patients with consent of next-of-kin,

In fact, if there is one thing the GA Resolution #175 seems to be against, it is the overriding of valid consent, or the lack thereof, of patients in brain death by their next-of-kin (unless, of course, there is a GA Resolution to the contrary). This part of the Dourian delegate's draft is in fact, quite confusing because in our opinion, this has little to do with the GA Resolution #175 at all.

The GA Resolution #175 "prohibits the removal of organs ... from live patients without informed consent", which is commendable. "Life", however, also includes brain death, which fails to meet the definition of clinical death: that is, (1) the lack of blood circulation and (2) the lack of breathing. In fact, since the patient would still have the right of bodily sovereignty (to do or have done to their body as they will), it would be obscene for this assembly to allow their next-of-kin to make these decisions for them, unless, as we have previously stated, the medical opinion that all has been done.

Regretting the lack of exception in compatibility testing for emergency universal donor blood transfusion,

Wishing that, in cases of emergency, universal donor blood could be used without compatibility testing and it's accompanied delay in care,

First of all, it would be "without compatibility testing and its accompanied delay", without the apostrophe.

Let's move on. By "universal donor blood", I would presume the Dourian delegate is referring to blood classified as O Rh(D)-negative.

Thankfully, the margin of error on ABO typing - the test to determine blood type - is zero, as expected of a procedure on which a patient's life hangs. However, it goes without saying that the accuracy of the results rely heavily on the pathologist performing the ABO typing, noting one incident where

Of the 126 retests completed, 51 had no discrepancies with the pathologist’s initial report, 46 had minor ... and 29 had substantial discrepancies.

Although it would be ideal, therefore, to use O Rh(D)-negative blood in transfusions where delays would have detrimental effects to the patient, true "universal donor blood" is hard to come by, and is best reserved for patients with O Rh(D)-negative blood, who cannot receive blood of any other type. Indeed, for patients of all other blood types, most hospital and other facilities that meet the "minimum safety standards" as legislated in s. 7 of the GA Resolution #175, which the Dourian delegate seeks to repeal, it would be more desirable to use blood of their type than O Rh(D)-negative blood.

The Chevalbourgish delegation submits the following table for consideration.

Blood Type	%, General Population	Can donate blood to:	Can receive blood from:	%, finding a compatible donor
O+	38.5 %	O+, A+, B+, AB+	O+, O-	50.0 %
O-	6.5 %	all types	O-	7.0 %
A+	34.3 %	A+, AB+	A+, A-, O+, O-	80.0 %
A-	5.7 %	A-, A+, AB-, AB+	A-, O-	13.0 %
B+	8.6 %	B+, AB+	B+, B-, O+, O-	60.0 %
B-	1.7 %	B+, B-, AB-, AB+	B-, O-	9.0 %
AB+	4.3 %	AB+	all types	100.0 %
AB-	0.7 %	AB-, AB+	AB-, A-, B-, O-	14.0 %

Furthermore, it is known that ABO typing takes approximately 2 minutes to successfully complete and, as we previously mentioned, has a margin of error of zero. Although in situations where there is detrimental delay, O Rh(D)-negative blood can be administered, in large quantities it is in the patient's best interest to perform ABO typing and administer blood appropriate to his or her type.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to conclude that the benefits of the GA Resolution #175 outweigh the potential risk posed by mandating compatibility testing prior to blood transfusions; we recommend the Dourian delegate reconsider their opinions on this issue.

Keeping these facts in mind, as well as the fact that this is, on average, one of the better-written resolution this delegation has had the opportunity of reviewing, we recommend that the Dourian delegate enter a better-substantiated resolution or repeal in the future that the Chevalbourgish delegation may have the delight of reading, and would thank this assembly for its time. (Hooray for walls of text!)

[Frisbeeteria]

This repeal proposal is full of lies about the original resolution; therefore, I have filed a challenge for it to be removed.

Please raise your points here. The forum thread should be the first line of recourse. The Secretariat should be the very, very last.

[Christian Democrats]

This repeal proposal, which should be removed by the Secretariat, is extremely misleading on several fronts.

1. Informed Consent

Firstly, it is necessary to define what informed consent is. Wikipedia provides a fairly good definition:

Informed consent is a phrase often used in law to indicate that the consent a person gives meets certain minimum standards. As a literal matter, in the absence of fraud, it is redundant. An informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given. Impairments to reasoning and judgment which may make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as basic intellectual or emotional immaturity, high levels of stress such as PTSD or as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma. . . .

In cases where an individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is generally authorized to give consent on his behalf, e.g., parents or legal guardians of a child (though in this circumstance the child may be required to provide informed assent) and caregivers for the mentally ill.

As characterized by this repeal proposal, my resolution seems not allow informed consent to be obtained from anyone but the patient himself. This is simply not true.

The resolution says this:

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 are two key phrases in this clause.

The first phrase is “without informed consent.” In my original draft of the resolution, it had said “without their informed consent.” I decided to remove the word “their” to allow for informed consent (consent by a competent person who understands all of the facts and potential consequences of a certain decision) to be obtained from persons other than the patient himself. This could be a parent, guardian, or relative. This could be someone to whom the patient had granted the power of attorney. This could be a court-appointed official if the patient did not have any family. Unlike the repeal proposal claims, my resolution does not limit from whom informed consent can be obtained.

The second phrase is “unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly’s resolutions.” This phrase is clearly a reference to Resolution 29, the Patient’s Rights Act. According to Section VIII of that resolution:

For the purposes of this legislation, “patient” may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

This repeal proposal clearly mischaracterizes the effect of the informed consent provision in the Organ and Blood Donations Act. The resolution, contrary to what this proposal claims, does allow (in two ways) informed consent to be obtained from someone other than the patient.

2. Death

Physically, there are two kinds of death: cardiopulmonary death and brain death. The former occurs when the heart ceases to function, and the latter occurs when the brain ceases to function.

Philosophically or legally, there are multiple definitions of death. According to “The Definition of Death” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, death can be one of the following:

death as the irreversible cessation of organismic functioning

human death as the irreversible loss of personhood

The repeal proposal wrongly assumes that the meaning of death in my proposal is cardiopulmonary death and “the irreversible cessation of organismic functioning.”

In fact, my resolution does not define death. The matter is left for individual countries to decide. I chose not to define death for two reasons: (1) respect for the rights of member states and (2) some species within the Assembly may lack hearts and brains. Physiologically, species may exist that are much different from human beings.

My resolution makes death a legal question for each member state to decide. Each nation is allowed to determine for itself when “legal death” occurs. On this point, the repeal proposal totally mischaracterizes my resolution.

In my nation, for example, death occurs when personhood ceases; and personhood ceases only when someone’s brain permanently ceases to function.

3. Blood Testing

According to this repeal proposal:

Regretting the lack of exception in compatibility testing for emergency universal donor blood transfusion,

Wishing that, in cases of emergency, universal donor blood could be used without compatibility testing and it’s accompanied delay in care

Apparently, the author did not understand what the resolution actually says:

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

According to the clause, compatibility testing needs to occur only to prevent “negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types.” If there is no possibility of a negative reaction, then this clause ceases to have any effect. No test needs to be conducted if it is definite that the body of the recipient will accept the blood.

As a side note, testing for blood type takes only about a minute. If an incompatible blood transfusion occurs, then that actually increases the bleeding of the patient and very well can cause the patient’s death.

4. Misleading Statement

The repeal proposal says:

Feeling that patients in WA Member Nations deserve a higher quality of transplants and transfusions than what is currently allowed under this resolution

My resolution does not disallow anything with respect to “transplants and transfusions,” unless the organ, tissue, or blood is infected or diseased.

Member states may set higher standards if they wish, but this clause falsely claims that my resolution somehow imposes restrictions that prevent high-quality care.

High-quality care is “currently allowed under this resolution,” unlike this proposal claims.

5. Plagiarism

I feel that this clause is plagiarized:

Feeling that patients in WA Member Nations deserve a higher quality of transplants and transfusions than what is currently allowed under this resolution

From this clause, which was posted earlier:

FEELS that patients in WA Member Nations deserve higher quality organs and tissues for transplants than what is currently allowed under this resolution.

I ask the Secretariat to remove this repeal proposal for all of these reasons. It mischaracterizes the informed consent provision, the meaning of death, and the blood testing provision in the Organ and Blood Donations Act.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I'm going to take you point by point real quick here.

1. Informed Consent

Let me begin by saying that the wikipedia definition you quoted agrees with me. It defines informed consent, then goes on to say that in most jurisdictions informed consent is supplemented by the consent of loves ones. Your resolution allows only for informed consent. I'm sure that's an oversight on your part, because it seems you really do believe you've made allowances for that. WA #29 referring to those who are brain dead by "unable to understand their rights under this act" would be quite a leap of faith on your part. If you at any time were capable of understanding your rights under that act, you are not covered by that clause.

2. Death

Your resolution restricts access to organs. It's as simple as that. The clauses of the repeal referring to death would not apply in all nations(like yours which has structured the law to get around this problem), but would apply in enough to restrict access to organs. Loopholes are not adequate reason to say your resolution is fine. Not all nations will have defined things as you have, nor should they. On religious, ethical or moral grounds they may not feel that your definitions are sufficient. It's up to you to make allowances for that.

3. Blood Testing

Testing for base compatibility is relatively simple and takes about 2-3 minutes. Cross-matching(which is part of the compatibility testing process), however, takes a bit longer. You must mix the two blood types and then wait to see if any negative reactions occur. This is necessary because while universal donor blood(for humans that's O-) has been separated from its plasma(which contains anti-a and anti-b antibodies) this is not a perfect process and some of those antibodies will remain. In some patients this will cause severe reactions. This results in a small but non-zero chance of negative reaction. The chance is not normally regarded as sufficient to delay care in emergency situations. Normally it is only accounted for in situations where there is sufficient time to do the cross matching. Your resolution, however, requires it every time.

4. Misleading Statement

Delays in care lead to a lower quality of care. Postmortem donated hearts are almost completely useless. This almost doesn't even require a response, but since you're trying to get a repeal killed, I felt it was a good idea to mention that.

5. Plagiarism

I consulted mousebumples over a period of several days with regards to this resolution. At one point they pointed me to their own repeal they were working on. I adapted that clause for my own resolution at that time. From the start of this consultation, I had mousebumples as a co-author(because I based my arguments on this post). We then agreed on a coordination strategy that would necessitate my removal of mousebumples as a co-author(namely that we would both be submitting repeals). At that time I believed the clause was sufficiently changed to assuage the fears mousebumples had. Those fears were namely that should my repeal fail with one of their clauses attached, it would make it much more difficult to pass their own version. The understanding was not that I should not use that clause at all, but merely that I change it enough to allow them to use it as well.

In short, unless mousebumples disagrees, that's not a plagiarized line. We've already discussed it in private(before either of us posted on the GA forums). If mousebumples does disagree, I greatly misunderstood the discourse we had.

Edit: Oh and one more thing:

First of all, it would be "without compatibility testing and its accompanied delay", without the apostrophe.

That's going to bother me all day.

[Auralia]

Your resolution restricts access to organs. It's as simple as that. The clauses of the repeal referring to death would not apply in all nations(like yours which has structured the law to get around this problem), but would apply in enough to restrict access to organs. Loopholes are not adequate reason to say your resolution is fine. Not all nations will have defined things as you have, nor should they. On religious, ethical or moral grounds they may not feel that your definitions are sufficient. It's up to you to make allowances for that.

Defining legal death as whole brain death or brain stem death instead of clinical death is not a loophole, and to even suggest that is ridiculous, given that most real-life jurisdictions, including the UK and the US, have abandoned a cardio-pulmonary definition of death and moved to a neurological one instead.

If some nations are still using the clinical death definition for legal purposes, then removing critical organs from brain-dead patients would constitute involuntary euthanasia, also known as murder. Regardless of any "religious, ethical or moral grounds", the World Assembly should not sponsor murder in one of its resolutions.

[Christian Democrats]

Let me begin by saying that the wikipedia definition you quoted agrees with me. It defines informed consent, then goes on to say that in most jurisdictions informed consent is supplemented by the consent of loves ones. Your resolution allows only for informed consent.

Informed consent is formal agreement when someone competent (and uncoerced) understands all of the facts and potential effects of making a certain decision. In the case of children or disabled adults, other persons may provide informed consent on behalf of the patient. Basically, informed consent is nothing more than consent by someone who is competent, informed, and not coerced. If someone is unable to give informed consent, then someone else can give informed consent in that person's place.

WA #29 referring to those who are brain dead by "unable to understand their rights under this act" would be quite a leap of faith on your part.

Brain dead . . . unable to understand.

It actually makes perfect sense because you can't reason if your brain has stopped functioning.

How on earth is it "quite a leap of faith" to say that the brain dead are incapable of comprehending their rights?

Your resolution restricts access to organs. It's as simple as that. The clauses of the repeal referring to death would not apply in all nations(like yours which has structured the law to get around this problem), but would apply in enough to restrict access to organs. Loopholes are not adequate reason to say your resolution is fine. Not all nations will have defined things as you have, nor should they. On religious, ethical or moral grounds they may not feel that your definitions are sufficient. It's up to you to make allowances for that.

This doesn't even make any sense. If my proposal allows for organs to be removed from brain dead patients, then what is the problem? If a nation is stupid and disallows organ removal from brain dead patients, then that is the problem of that nation alone, not the General Assembly. There should be better national legislation.

Who says that all species in the World Assembly have brains?

You proposal outright lies by falsely claiming that my resolution prevents the removal of organs from brain dead patients.

Testing for base compatibility is relatively simple and takes about 2-3 minutes. Cross-matching(which is part of the compatibility testing process), however, takes a bit longer.

A base compatibility test would be sufficient per the provisions of the resolution because it is a test for compatibility.

Your resolution, however, requires it every time.

No, it doesn't. Let us imagine the existence of a species for which all blood is the same. Would that species be bound by the terms of my resolution regarding testing for blood types? No, there is almost no chance that a negative reaction will occur. The same goes for human recipients of blood transfusions. In the case of an emergency, O-negative blood could be provided without a formal compatibility test because there isn't a chance of a negative reaction occurring. My resolution requires blood compatibility testing only to prevent negative reactions. If there isn't going to be a negative reaction, then a blood transfusion can go forward without any problem.

Delays in care lead to a lower quality of care.

My resolution does not delay care.

Once again, I ask the moderators to remove this proposal from queue because it lies about the informed consent provision, the meaning of death, and the blood testing provision of my resolution.

Repeal Proposal	Resolution
If a patient is unable to give informed consent, then a medically necessary procedure can't take place.	Informed consent can be obtained from someone other than the patient, unlike the repeal proposal says.
The meaning of death, as used in the resolution, is cardiopulmonary death and the irreversible cessation of all organismic functions.	Death is not defined. Each nation can decide for itself what death means. In real life, death is usually defined as the permanent cessation of brain activity and the irreversible loss of personhood.
Blood compatibility testing must take place even when there is no possibility that a negative transfusion reaction will occur.	Blood compatibility tests must be conducted in order to prevent negative transfusion reactions. If a negative reaction is not possible, then a compatibility test is unnecessary.

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't.

My resolution does not do three things that the repeal proposal accuses it of doing.

[Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

We will support this and the other repeal. We figure that one of them will be successful.

-Col. George Hentzau
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Supreme & Exalted Empire of Gatchina

[Frisbeeteria]

Once again, I ask the moderators to remove this proposal from queue because it lies about the informed consent provision, the meaning of death, and the blood testing provision of my resolution.

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't.

My resolution does not do three things that the repeal proposal accuses it of doing.

The "honest mistake" provisions are there so that moderators can take down proposals that are otherwise legal but clearly have no clue what they're trying to do. I don't think that's the case here. I think we're looking at an "honest disagreement", and that's something that should be discussed and possibly voted on.

I see two ways that this proposal could be removed by the Secretariat. One is that the author is swayed by your argument and requests removal. The other would be for Mousebumples to post here (or file a GHR) that the reported plagiarism took place without their consent. Absent one or the other, I don't think this is a Secretariat call.

[Chevalbourg]

To add to this, my resolution says "in order to prevent negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types." If a certain type of blood isn't an exact match but does help the patient, then it is not incompatible.

incompatible: adj. Of two things: impossible to coexist; not congruous because of differences; irreconcilable; disagreeing.

Note the word "impossible." If this blood can exist with that blood, then the two types are compatible (despite their minor differences).

You're using a Wiktionary definition of "incompatible" to deal with a medical issue?

Alright, let's get down to the heart of this problem. The fact is, compatibility testing isn't a one-time, two-minute deal.

The first step, sure is to determine the ABO and Rh status of the blood - this is quick. Then, there's the screening for alloantibodies that can react with donors' blood, which takes about fourty-five minutes. The blood bank technologist also has to check up on the patient's medical history and current state, to see if they need the blood to be washed, irradiated, or CMV-negative, and if the patient has previously identified antibodies.

Even if ABO and Rh types are "compatible", they by no means "help the patient".

A positive screen from these procedures mean that the technologist then has to do an anti-body panel and investigation to see if the incompatibility is clinically significant - because yes, minor differences do matter in a life-or-death situation that needs blood transfusions.

This means that the patient's blood serum has to be compared with the phenotypes of prepared O-type blood cells, as well as what is called a "Coombes test". A pattern will emerge to confirm the presence of antibodies. If there aren't any antibodies that are clinically significant, then blood transfusion can happen. However, if there is something that can cause transfusion reactions, HDN, etc., then other steps have to be taken.

If there is an antibody, donor units have to be screened by phenotyping them, then tested through cross-matching. If there isn't, then you still have to cross-match and test two drops of the patient's serum against donor cells in a test tube. If clotting occurs, you have to grab the next bag.

As you can see, compatibility isn't a clear-cut issue.

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;

"In order to prevent negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types", you have to take the above procedure which is as time-consuming as it is potentially dangerous in urgent cases. Usual medical procedure in emergencies is to use O Rh(D)-negative blood first, then follow with a cross-match. But this isn't covered by this resolution, and compulsory compatibility testing that must happen in every case (since there is always a possibility that of the 200-different sub-blood types, a negative transfusion will occur) is counter-intuitive for the purpose of this resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

The "honest mistake" provisions are there so that moderators can take down proposals that are otherwise legal but clearly have no clue what they're trying to do. I don't think that's the case here. I think we're looking at an "honest disagreement", and that's something that should be discussed and possibly voted on.

This is not what the Secretariat has held in the past. In the past, it has stated:

If a proposal makes a definitive statement about the contents of a resolution, and that definitive statement is not borne out by the actual contents of the resolution, there could be grounds to declare the proposal illegal.

The Secretariat, in cases such as this, should determine what the resolution actually means. If the repeal proposal wrongly interprets the resolution, then the Secretariat has an obligation to remove the proposal from queue under the "honest mistakes" rule. On three points, this proposal misinterprets the effects of my resolution. It misinterprets the informed consent provision, the meaning of death, and the blood transfusions provision of the Organ and Blood Donations Act.

I feel that my argument concerning a possible misinterpretation of the informed consent provision is strongest, followed by the possible misinterpretation of the meaning of death, which is not defined in the resolution as this repeal proposal seems to claim by insisting that I intended death to mean cardiopulmonary death and not brain death. In fact, I intended death to be defined by each member state (hence, the lack of a definition of death in the resolution).

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

Since you're so fond of quoting wikipedia definitions, I thought I'd throw the one for "death" in here. With bold on the important part.

Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, murder and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. All known organisms inevitably experience death. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.

Edit: As for informed consent, I agree to disagree with you. I could see how you might think you're right on that, but you aren't.

And blood compatibility testing? Read the post Chevalbourg just made, 'cause I couldn't have said it any clearer than that.

[Auralia]

Since you're so fond of quoting wikipedia definitions, I thought I'd throw the one for "death" in here. With bold on the important part.

Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, murder and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. All known organisms inevitably experience death. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.

Did you not read my post?

[Christian Democrats]

*snip*

Since you're so fond of quoting wikipedia definitions, I thought I'd throw the one for "death" in here. With bold on the important part.

Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, murder and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. All known organisms inevitably experience death. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.

1. My resolution does not define "death." The matter is left for each member state to decide.
   
2. Your repeal proposal claims that death, as used in my resolution, means the "permanent termination of all biological functions."
   
3. The more common definition of death philosophically and legally is "the irreversible loss of personhood."
   
4. By claiming that my resolution means something that it does not say, you are lying about my resolution.
   
5. Because your repeal proposal makes a false claim about my resolution, it should be removed from queue for being illegal.

Once again, I ask the moderators to remove this proposal for violating the General Assembly Rules.

If a proposal makes a definitive statement about the contents of a resolution, and that definitive statement is not borne out by the actual contents of the resolution, there could be grounds to declare the proposal illegal.

Half of this repeal proposal relies on the false premise that my resolution disallows the harvesting of organs from those who are brain dead. To the contrary, harvesting organs from brain dead patients without their consent is totally legal under the terms of my resolution. This repeal proposal should be removed under the honest mistakes rule because it "tries to undo a Resolution because [the author] think[s] it does something it doesn't." The resolution does not ban the removal of organs from brain dead patients as this repeal proposal falsely claims. The completely false claim that organs cannot be harvested from brain dead patients is the primary argument of this repeal proposal.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

You know, I hate for this to turn childish, but I get the feeling that absent a moderator coming in here right now and telling you that they've already ruled on this once, and just because you don't like the ruling doesn't mean it's wrong, we're going to keep riding this gosh darned merry go round.

I'm right. You're not. So stop calling me a liar.

[Battlion]

I support this, face it isn't gonna be removed and we'll let the whole WA vote on it.

[Mousebumples]

For the record, I am NOT complaining of any plagiarism within this repeal draft. I support this repeal draft as I am committed to seeing this resolution repealed and replaced with a more effective set of replacements.

If, for whatever reason, this attempt is not successful, I plan to move forward with my own repeal text. I wish the Dourian Embassy luck with their repeal attempt - because then that's one less that I have to handle myself.

Yours in encouraging a vote to repeal,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Mousebumples]

Once again, I ask the moderators to remove this proposal for violating the General Assembly Rules.

If a proposal makes a definitive statement about the contents of a resolution, and that definitive statement is not borne out by the actual contents of the resolution, there could be grounds to declare the proposal illegal.

Half of this repeal proposal relies on the false premise that my resolution disallows the harvesting of organs from those who are brain dead. To the contrary, harvesting organs from brain dead patients without their consent is totally legal under the terms of my resolution. This repeal proposal should be removed under the honest mistakes rule because it "tries to undo a Resolution because [the author] think[s] it does something it doesn't." The resolution does not ban the removal of organs from brain dead patients as this repeal proposal falsely claims. The completely false claim that organs cannot be harvested from brain dead patients is the primary argument of this repeal proposal.

I'd like to link you to a contrary modly precedent to what you're claiming, as I think you are misinterpreting Ard's comments above.

From Fris, here:

Differences in interpretation such as the one you're appealing are not subject to the "Honest Mistake" rule. That one is reserved for people who submit a proposal or a repeal that ends up in clear contradiction or duplication of the stated effects. The Secretariat isn't here to make arbitrary decisions about interpretation. That's up to WA delegates and member nations.

Your concern is regarding the INTERPRETATION of your resolution. You read it one way. The Dourian Embassy, myself, and others, read it another. Neither side is "wrong," as it's a matter of interpretation. As such, I expect that the mods will rule that such a discussion should happen At Vote.

[Frisbeeteria]

Thanks for locating that quote. I knew I'd seen it, couldn't put my hands on it.

As such, I expect that the mods will rule have ruled that such a discussion should happen At Vote.

Fixed.

[Mousebumples]

Thanks for locating that quote. I knew I'd seen it, couldn't put my hands on it.

As such, I expect that the mods will rule have ruled that such a discussion should happen At Vote.

Fixed.

It was my own vote thread. I tend to remember those.

Anyhow, happy to help!

[Ardchoille]

Its's fascinating to see myself being quoted by two people in support of opposing opinions. Makes me feel quite Abrahamic.

First up, I have to point out that the statement CD quotes was not a ruling. It was made in a thread discussing a technical point of language on which my RL self has professional experience. With that in mind, I posted first with my non-moderator nation. Though I came back later (presumably after having done some modly stuff) using my mod nation, I think it was clear that the not-ruling state continued; certainly Glen-Rhodes thought so:

If a proposal makes a definitive statement about the contents of a resolution, and that definitive statement is not borne out by the actual contents of the resolution, there could be grounds to declare the proposal illegal.

I understand you're not ruling on anything, so I'll take this as player-to-player.

Thus, I think it a bit disingenuous to keep referring to it as "The Secretariat has ruled ...".

Next up, you'll note I said "could"; conditional -- there could be grounds. Thus, regarding that as the advice of a longtime player about repeals in general, it's understandable that you would ask the Secretariat if, in this specific repeal, there are grounds to declare it illegal.

By asking for a Secretariat ruling, you would of course be aware that you are asking for a one-time, final answer. Mods may explain the reasons for a ruling, but that's not an invitation to debate.

And now you have it. You asked, politely and reasonably, if there were grounds. Fris responded, politely and reasonably, that there were not. You argued that the repeal is mistaken about the proposal; he rules that it's not "honest mistake", but rather "honest disagreement", and therefore refers it to the WA for discussion and possible decision.

That's it. You have a ruling. Time to move on.

[Flatulati Incontinentia]

On behalf of the peoples of Flatulati Incontinentia, I, the immortal Rastus Odinga - Odinga, heartily endorse the proposed repeal of this act. If anything, it fails to go far enough. It is well documented that the lives of some are worth more than the lives of others. Flatulati Incontinentia believes that unrestricted government-mandated organ harvesting is the only proper course.

In the meantime, the repeal of this scurrilous law is an adequate start. Consider this a zecond to the proposal.

Flatulati Incontinentia calls the question. (see Roberts Rules of Order).

[Ardchoille]

Flatulati Incontinentia calls the question. (see Roberts Rules of Order).

Sorry, but Flatulati Incontinentia can't call it. The WA can't see Roberts Rules of Order (if it could, we'd have amendments).