[PASSED] Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"

[Mousebumples]

Why you should vote in favor:

• Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is really the main "problem" with what's outlawed under the current resolution. Less than 10% of RL transplants involve transplanting a CMV-negative organ to a CMV-negative recipient. (Source) That's a significant portion of organ transplants that are now outlawed by NS law, which will likely result in more patients dying while they wait for a transplant.
• This resolution restricts the choice of patients and medical decision making of doctors and other health care professionals to work in the best interests of their patients.
• CMV is totally safe when it comes to blood donations and transfusions when its given to otherwise healthy individuals. CMV-negative blood is generally "saved" for use in babies (Source) since they have a weaker immune system and may be more susceptible to complications from contracting CMV at such a young age. As CMV affects between 50-80% of people throughout the course of their lifetime (Source), that is a significant portion of the population that is no longer able to donate blood under this resolution. The lack of blood stocks for transfusion would likely result in more deaths.

A recap of my proposed replacements:

1. Medical Donation Rights is a Human Rights resolution
2. Biomedical Innovation Organization is an Education resolution, focused on research & development
3. Biomedical Trade & Treatment is a Free Trade resolution

Submitted Version: (Sources are linked throughout, but additional sources can also be found in this post for your reference.)

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

REALIZES that repealing GAR#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act,” will not outlaw organ and blood donations and transplants within WA member nations,

BELIEVES, additionally, that the shortcomings of the resolution require its repeal in order to allow WA member nations to most effectively perform life-saving organ and blood transplants.

HIGHLIGHTS the wording of Clause 7, which states: 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).

RECOGNIZES that the wording of this clause does not allow for any flexibility with regards to such transplants, even if such a transplant would be consented to by the prospective recipient.

UNDERSTANDS that some infections, such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Hepatitis B & C (HBV & HCV) may be spread from donor to recipient during a transplantation or transfusion process, which means that individuals with these diseases shall be considered “infected and/or diseased” under the terms of this resolution.

DETAILS the following:

• CMV is a disease that may affect a substantial portion of a given nation's population. ^[Source]
  
  1. CMV-positive blood and components can be safely transfused into otherwise healthy receipients, even though such transfusions are likely to spread the disease to CMV-negative recipients. ^[Source]
  2. CMV-positive organs and tissues can and have been transplanted safely to CMV-negative recipients in need when associated with appropriate anti-viral treatments. ^[Source]
• Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), and Human Immunodeficiency (HIV) viruses are diseases that affect varying amounts of individuals within a given population.
  
  1. HBV, HCV, and HIV-positive donors can and have successfully donated organs to a recipient who tests positive for the same disease that they have. ^{[Source: Who can be an organ donor?] & [Source: HIV+ transplants]}
  2. Many individuals who are in need of organ transplants may be willing to take an organ that is HBV, HCV, or HIV-positive as receiving an organ would prolong their life even if they were to contract a new disease in the process. ^[Source]
• Clause 7 “forbids” the transplantation of organs from individuals who test positive for CMV, HBV, HCV, and HIV, which means that each of the above examples are currently prohibited under WA law.

REGRETS that the unfortunate wording of this clause does not allow for flexibility in the handling of donations and transplants, which prevents member states from instituting common-sense practices that do not harm public health and may provide a net benefit for individual patients.

LAMENTS that the scarcity of resources available for transfusion and transplantation is adversely impacted by this resolution and increases the possibility that those patients in need of an organ transplant will die prior to receiving an organ that can save their lives.

DECLARES that individual recipients, in coordination with informed recommendations from their health care provider(s), should be allowed to give their informed consent for such procedures that are outlawed by this resolution.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on this subject to rectify the aforementioned flaws while still assuring the safety and availability of blood, blood components, organs, and tissues in order to save lives of individuals in all WA member nations.

REPEALS GAR#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

So I've had this ... idea for a few months now. Of course, since the "idea" involves FIVE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS ... it took a bit of time to get off the ground. But here's what I have for you right now.

STEP ONE: The Repeals
(1) Organ and Blood Donations Act
(2) Stem Cells for Greater Health

I've been strongly against both for ... ages. I don't know that either repeal attempt (as being done by me) will surprise anyone. I think that the subjects are very similar and should be treated similarly on an international level. And that brings me/us to ...

STEP TWO: The Replacements
I've never replaced anything I've repealed myself. Because of my (IRL/OOC) medical background, this is one exception that I'm looking to make. I personally feel that both of these resolutions tried to do too much and didn't to much of it well, overall. As such, I "combined" the 2 concepts into "biomedical treatments" and covered 3 different arenas on the subject.

(1) Medical Donation Rights - Human Rights, Significant
(2) Biomedical Innovation Organization - Education & Creativity, Education
(3) Biomedical Trade & Treatment - Free Trade, Mild

I'll admit it - my first draft as a replacement was ... a mess. I tried to focus on Free Trade and ended up all over the place - a category violation waiting to happen, probably. I ended up "forgetting that" and starting over - and writing in the order that I indend to submit (see above) - and ... that seemed to work much better. Of course, if both repeals don't pass, I doubt that I could submit any of the replacements. (Maybe - I honestly haven't checked, but it seems likely to conflict with the originals.)

Questions and concerns are certainly welcome. However, please do use the above links to jump easily between the different drafts and offer your thoughts.

SUBMITTED VERSION:

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

REALIZES that repealing GAR#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act,” will not outlaw organ and blood donations and transplants within WA member nations,

BELIEVES, additionally, that the shortcomings of the resolution require its repeal in order to allow WA member nations to most effectively perform life-saving organ and blood transplants.

HIGHLIGHTS the wording of Clause 7, which states: 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).

RECOGNIZES that the wording of this clause does not allow for any flexibility with regards to such transplants, even if such a transplant would be consented to by the prospective recipient.

UNDERSTANDS that some infections, such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Hepatitis B & C (HBV & HCV) may be spread from donor to recipient during a transplantation or transfusion process, which means that individuals with these diseases shall be considered “infected and/or diseased” under the terms of this resolution.

DETAILS the following:

• CMV is a disease that may affect a substantial portion of a given nation's population.
  
  1. CMV-positive blood and components can be safely transfused into otherwise healthy receipients, even though such transfusions are likely to spread the disease to CMV-negative recipients.
  2. CMV-positive organs and tissues can and have been transplanted safely to CMV-negative recipients in need when associated with appropriate anti-viral treatments.
• Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), and Human Immunodeficiency (HIV) viruses are diseases that affect varying amounts of individuals within a given population.
  1. HBV, HCV, and HIV-positive donors can and have successfully donated organs to a recipient who tests positive for the same disease that they have.
  2. Many individuals who are in need of organ transplants may be willing to take an organ that is HBV, HCV, or HIV-positive as receiving an organ would prolong their life even if they were to contract a new disease in the process.
• Clause 7 “forbids” the transplantation of organs from individuals who test positive for CMV, HBV, HCV, and HIV, which means that each of the above examples are currently prohibited under WA law.

REGRETS that the unfortunate wording of this clause does not allow for flexibility in the handling of donations and transplants, which prevents member states from instituting common-sense practices that do not harm public health and may provide a net benefit for individual patients.

LAMENTS that the scarcity of resources available for transfusion and transplantation is adversely impacted by this resolution and increases the possibility that those patients in need of an organ transplant will die prior to receiving an organ that can save their lives.

DECLARES that individual recipients, in coordination with informed recommendations from their health care provider(s), should be allowed to give their informed consent for such procedures that are outlawed by this resolution.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on this subject to rectify the aforementioned flaws while still assuring the safety and availability of blood, blood components, organs, and tissues in order to save lives of individuals in all WA member nations.

REPEALS GAR#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

VERSION V

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

REALIZES that repealing GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act,” will not outlaw organ and blood donations and transplants within WA member nations,

BELIEVES, additionally, that the shortcomings of the resolution necessitate its repeal in order to allow WA member nations to most effectively perform life-saving organ and blood transplants.

HIGHLIGHTS the wording of Clause 7, which states: 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).

ACCEPTS that some infections, such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Hepatitis B & C (HBV & HCV) may be spread from donor to recipient during a transplantation or transfusion process, which mean that those with these diseases shall be considered “infected and/or diseased.”

OFFERS the following details regarding the shortcomings of Clause 7:

• CMV is a disease that may affect a substantial portion of a given nation's population.
  
  1. CMV-positive blood and components can be safely transfused into otherwise healthy donors, even though such transfusions are likely to spread the disease to CMV-negative recipients.
  2. CMV-positive organs and tissues can and have been safely donated to CMV-negative recipients in need of transplants when associated with appropriate anti-viral treatments.
• Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), and Human Immunodeficiency (HIV) viruses are diseases that affect varying amounts of individuals within a given population, depending on many factors.
  
  1. HBV, HCV, and HIV-positive donors can and have successfully donated organs to a recipient who tests positive for the same disease that they have.
  2. Many individuals who are in need of organ transplants may be willing to take an organ that is HBV, HCV, or HIV-positive as receiving an organ would prolong their life even if they were to contract a new disease in the process.
• Clause 7 “forbids” the transplantation of organs from individuals who test positive for CMV, HBV, HCV, and HIV, which means that each of the above examples are presently prohibited under WA law.

REGRETS that the unfortunate wording of this clause does not allow for flexibility in the handling of donations and transplants, which prevents member states from instituting common-sense practices that do not harm public health and may provide a net benefit for individual patients.

LAMENTS that the scarcity of resources available for transfusion and transplantation is adversely impacted by this resolution and increases the possibility that those patients in need of an organ transplant will die prior to receiving an organ that can save their lives.

DECLARES that individual recipients, in coordination with informed recommendations from their health care provider(s), should be allowed to give their informed consent for such procedures that are currently outlawed.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on this subject to rectify the aforementioned flaws while still assuring safety and availability of blood, blood components, organs, and tissues in order to save lives of individuals in all WA member nations.

REPEALS GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

VERSION IV

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

LAUDS the intent of GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act" to provide access to blood and organ donations.

BELIEVES, however, that a number of faults in this resolution's text may limit the effectiveness of the resolution in question.

UNDERSTANDS the meritorious intent of Clause 7, which states: 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).

ACCEPTS that some infections, such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Hepatitis B & C (HBV & HCV) may be spread from donor to recipient during a transplantation or transfusion process.

DETAILS the following shortcomings of Clause 7:

• Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a disease that may affect a substantial portion of a given nation's population.
  
  1. CMV-positive blood and components can be safely transfused into otherwise healthy donors.
  2. CMV-positive organs and tissues can and have been safely donated CMV-negative recipients in need of transplants when associated with appropriate anti-viral treatments.
• Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), and Human Immunodeficiency (HIV) viruses are diseases that affect varying amounts of individuals within a given population, depending on many factors.
  
  1. HBV, HCV, and HIV-postive donors may each successfully donate organs to a recipient who tests positive for the same disease that they have.
  2. Many individuals in need of organ transplants may be willing to take an organ that is HBV, HCV, or HIV-positive as receiving an organ would prolong their life.
• Clause 7 “forbids” the transplantation of organs from individuals who test positive for CMV, HBV, HCV, and HIV, which means that each of the above examples are presently prohibited under WA law.

REGRETS that the unfortunate wording of this clause does not allow for flexibility in the handling of donations and transplants, which prevents member states from instituting common-sense practices that do not harm public health and may provide a net benefit for individual patients.

LAMENTS that the scarcity of resources for transfusion and transplantation is adversely affected by this resolution and increases the possibility that those patients in need of an organ transplant will die prior to receiving an organ that can save their lives.

DECLARES that individual recipients, in coordination with informed recommendations from their health care provider(s), should be able to give their informed consent for such currently outlawed transplants.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on blood and blood component donation and organ and tissue transplantation to rectify the aforementioned flaws while still assuring safety and availability of blood, blood components, organs, and tissues.

REPEALS GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

Version III

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

LAUDS the intent of GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act" to provide access to blood and organ donations.

BELIEVES, however, that a number of faults in this resolution's text may limit the effectiveness of the resolution in question.

UNDERSTANDS the meritorious intent of Clause 7, which states: 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).

REGRETS that the unfortunate wording of this clause does not allow for flexibility in the handling of donations and transplants, which prevents member states from instituting common-sense practices that do not harm public health and may provide a net benefit for individual patients.

DETAILS that individuals who test positive for cytomegalovirus (CMV) will be forbidden from donating any blood, organs, tissues, or components under this clause, despite the following:

• CMV-positive blood can be safely donated to otherwise healthy individuals, but such blood donations would be prohibited under this resolution.
• CMV-positive organs can and have been safely donated to those in need of transplants when associated with appropriate preventative anti-viral treatments.
• Many individuals in need of a transplant may have already been exposed to CMV and are already CMV-positive, whether or not their newly transplant or transfusion contains CMV-positive materials.

RECOGNIZES that CMV may affect a substantial portion of a given nation's population and that these individuals are prohibited from donating blood, organs, tissues, and/or components due to their CMV-positive status.

LAMENTS that the scarcity of resources for transfusion and transplantation is adversely affected by this resolution and increases the possibility that those patients in need of an organ transplant will die prior to receiving an organ that can save their lives.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on blood and blood component donation and organ and tissue transplantation to rectify the aforementioned flaws while still assuring safety and availability of blood, blood components, organs, and tissues.

REPEALS GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

LAUDS the intent of GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act" to provide access to blood and organ donations.

BELIEVES, however, that a number of faults in this resolution's text may limit the effectiveness of the resolution in question.

UNDERSTANDS the meritorious intent of Clause 7, which states: 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);

DOCUMENTS that as the resolution in question fails to differentiate between life-threatening infections and diseases, as there are some infections and diseases that will not put recipients at risk. However, due to the unfortunate wording of this clause, individuals with some non-life threatening diseases or infections would be prohibited from donating as signs of their condition(s) may be detected in blood, organs, tissues, and/or components.

DETAILS that cytomegalovirus (CMV) is such infection that affects well over half of most adult populations.

• CMV is a virus that periodically re-activates throughout an individual's lifetime after they have been exposed. Most healthy individuals do not have any symptoms when they have an active CMV infection.
• CMV-positive blood can be safely donated to otherwise healthy individuals, but such blood donations would be prohibited under this resolution.
• CMV-positive organs can and have been safely donated to those in need of transplants when associated with appropriate preventative anti-viral treatments. However, such transplants would be prohibited under this resolution.
• Many individuals in need of a transplant may have already been exposed to CMV, which puts them at risk for future re-activation of CMV whether or not their newly transplanted organ was CMV-positive or CMV-negative.

RECOGNIZES that because such a large segment of the population is prohibited from donating blood, organs, tissues, and/or components due to their CMV-positive status, the scarcity of resources for transfusion and transplantation is adversely affected by this resolution and makes it more likely that those in need of an organ transplant will die prior to receiving an organ that can save their life.

REALIZES, additionally, that there are some infections that could be safely transplanted from one diseased individual (the donor) to another with the same disease (the recipient). These may include: Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and Herpes Simplex Virus – among others.

REGRETS that such organ transplants, for example from a Hepatitis B-positive donor to a Hepatitis B-positive recipient, are outlawed under this resolution, which may result in wasting organs that could otherwise have gone to help save the lives of those in need.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on blood and blood component donation and organ and tissue transplantation to rectify the aforementioned flaws.

REPEALS GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

LAUDS the intent of GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act" to provide access to blood and organ donations.

BELIEVES, however, that a number of faults in this resolution's text may limit the effectiveness of the resolution in question.

WORRIES that while Clause 1 legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

WISHES that this resolution had distinguished between blood, organ, and tissue donations when stipulating conditions for donation as Clause 2 reads: 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.

ACCEPTS that individuals who are medically categorized as "brain dead" are unable to provide informed consent, which delays organ and tissue harvesting until after "brain dead" individuals have medically died.

UNDERSTANDS that post-mortem organ and tissue donation is not nearly as successful when compared to organs and tissues harvested from "brain dead" donors and that hearts cannot be successfully harvested from post-mortem donors.

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

NOTES that Clause 5 requires compatibility testing be done for all blood transfusions, even when blood from a universal blood donor may be available should there not be time to allow for such compatibility testing.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on blood and blood component donation and organ and tissue transplantation to rectify the aforementioned flaws.

REPEALS GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

Comments and critiques are, as always, welcome. Thanks for checking this out!

[Auralia]

WORRIES that while Clause 1 legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

I can't think of any nation which has expressed concern that they will be forced to allow their citizens to undergo donation, transplantation or transfusion. Clause 2 already provides an exception for individuals who do not wish to donate, and I believe a separate resolution can be passed regarding freedom of conscience in receiving medical treatment without needing to repeal this one.

WISHES that this resolution had distinguished between blood, organ, and tissue donations when stipulating conditions for donation as Clause 2 reads: 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.

ACCEPTS that individuals who are medically categorized as "brain dead" are unable to provide informed consent, which delays organ and tissue harvesting until after "brain dead" individuals have medically died.

UNDERSTANDS that post-mortem organ and tissue donation is not nearly as successful when compared to organs and tissues harvested from "brain dead" donors and that hearts cannot be successfully harvested from post-mortem donors.

Is it not true that nations can use a neurological rather than a cardio-pulmonary definiton of death? In that case, it would be perfectly legal to harvest organs, blood and tissue from brain dead individuals under this resolution.

NOTES that Clause 5 requires compatibility testing be done for all blood transfusions, even when blood from a universal blood donor may be available should there not be time to allow for such compatibility testing.

I don't think the resolution defines "compatibility testing", so wouldn't confirmation that the donor is a universal blood donor be sufficient in nations which choose to define it that way?

[Scion Lop On]

As much as I genuinely want this resolution repealed, I think this clause -

WORRIES that while Clause 1 legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

- makes a very weak argument that will only really appeal to an minority of zealous anti-medicine worshippers. Personally, I believe that there are enough flaws in the resolution to attack without having to resort to this argument. Whatever you decide to do, I support this repeal, but I would truly appreciate the clause in question being removed.

[Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs]

We have recieved a telex from Strelsau to offer our full support to this repeal. We are anxious to approve it and see it get to quorum.


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

[Mousebumples]

WORRIES that while Clause 1 legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

I can't think of any nation which has expressed concern that they will be forced to allow their citizens to undergo donation, transplantation or transfusion. Clause 2 already provides an exception for individuals who do not wish to donate, and I believe a separate resolution can be passed regarding freedom of conscience in receiving medical treatment without needing to repeal this one.

OOC note here: From an RL perspective, Jehovah's Witnesses have religious objections to blood transfusions and donations. I think it's safe to presume that somewhere in the vast world of NS is at least one nation with similar religious beliefs. Yes, RL =/= NS, but it's been ruled in the past that if something exists in the RL it's safe to presume that it exists in NS ... somewhere.

Is it not true that nations can use a neurological rather than a cardio-pulmonary definiton of death? In that case, it would be perfectly legal to harvest organs, blood and tissue from brain dead individuals under this resolution.

That seems like loopholing, to me. Not that loopholes are bad, but I'd prefer not to rely on loopholes to make a resolution work.

I don't think the resolution defines "compatibility testing", so wouldn't confirmation that the donor is a universal blood donor be sufficient in nations which choose to define it that way?

See above with my hating to settle for loopholes. I'd rather the resolution be well-written enough to start with that loopholes aren't required to "fix" whatever problems exist within it.

As much as I genuinely want this resolution repealed, I think this clause -

WORRIES that while Clause 1 legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

- makes a very weak argument that will only really appeal to an minority of zealous anti-medicine worshippers. Personally, I believe that there are enough flaws in the resolution to attack without having to resort to this argument. Whatever you decide to do, I support this repeal, but I would truly appreciate the clause in question being removed.

I'll admit that I'm not overly attached to that clause, and - when writing this repeal - I just started off with as many arguments as I could include coherently and persuasively. If others agree with your assessment, I have no problems with pulling that clause. Of course, I may end up moving the clause down to a ... less "important" part of the text. (i.e. further down, where those that just skim the texts anyhow are likely to gloss over it.)

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Mousebumples]

We have recieved a telex from Strelsau to offer our full support to this repeal. We are anxious to approve it and see it get to quorum.

Thanks for the support. I hope to get this submitted within a week or two - depending on debate and discussion during this drafting phase.

Cheers,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Chevalbourg]

First of all, I would like to thank the Mousebumples delegate for their views on this issue; we have reviewed a similar move to repeal the same GA Resolution #175, which can be found here - and to which we have replied faithfully and in detail.

We find many similarities between both drafts, and as such, would like to bring the following to the attention of the Mousebumples delegate.

WISHES that this resolution had distinguished between blood, organ, and tissue donations when stipulating conditions for donation as Clause 2 reads: 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.

ACCEPTS that individuals who are medically categorized as "brain dead" are unable to provide informed consent, which delays organ and tissue harvesting until after "brain dead" individuals have medically died.

First and foremost, why should the GA Resolution #175 distinguish between blood, organ and tissue donations in clause 2?

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 - means to bypass the lack of mental faculties.

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.

It seems contrary to the humanitarian nature of this assembly to repeal the GA Resolution #175 on the grounds that observing the wishes of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin delays organ harvesting until clinical death, and when the benefits reaped from this resolution outweigh the harms.

NOTES that Clause 5 requires compatibility testing be done for all blood transfusions, even when blood from a universal blood donor may be available should there not be time to allow for such compatibility testing.

By "universal blood donor", I would presume the Dourian delegate is referring to those with 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 Mousebumples 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 %

(OoC: Although r/l has little bearing on NS, these stats should still be pertinent to the more human nations, regions and planets here.)

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, to the contrary of what the Mousebumples delegate is proposing, the benefits of the GA Resolution #175 outweigh the potential risk posed by mandating compatibility testing prior to blood transfusions if these procedures are handled with due dilligence by the international medical community.

WORRIES that while Clause 1 legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

This is the one clause that the Chevalbourgish delegation finds itself in agreement with the Mousebumples delegate.

However, given the leaps in medical safety that the GA Resolution #175 has provided (mandating the use of sterile needles, minimum safety measures, etc.), and since it respects the right to bodily sovereignty of the patients (not requiring them to donate organs, tissue or blood when brain-dead or clinically dead), we feel that it would not be appropriate to repeal this resolution, and would have to take a stance against this proposed repeal.

We welcome the Mousebumples delegate to reconsider these facts, and how they relate to their repeal; and we thank the assembly for its time.

[Auralia]

This is an OOC post.

I can't think of any nation which has expressed concern that they will be forced to allow their citizens to undergo donation, transplantation or transfusion. Clause 2 already provides an exception for individuals who do not wish to donate, and I believe a separate resolution can be passed regarding freedom of conscience in receiving medical treatment without needing to repeal this one.

OOC note here: From an RL perspective, Jehovah's Witnesses have religious objections to blood transfusions and donations. I think it's safe to presume that somewhere in the vast world of NS is at least one nation with similar religious beliefs. Yes, RL =/= NS, but it's been ruled in the past that if something exists in the RL it's safe to presume that it exists in NS ... somewhere.

Yes, I'm well aware of the stance of Jehovah's Witnesses on blood transfusions, but I wasn't aware that they were demanding that everyone in the world abstain from blood transfusions, regardless of whether they're Jehovah's Witnesses. If that's not the case, than clause 2 and a freedom of conscience resolution should be sufficient to protect their rights.

Is it not true that nations can use a neurological rather than a cardio-pulmonary definiton of death? In that case, it would be perfectly legal to harvest organs, blood and tissue from brain dead individuals under this resolution.

That seems like loopholing, to me. Not that loopholes are bad, but I'd prefer not to rely on loopholes to make a resolution work.

It's not a loophole. Most real-life jurisdictions no longer use the clinical death definition for legal death. The US primarily uses whole brain death, while the UK uses brain stem death.

Actually, I'd argue that using this as a loophole would be morally wrong. As a rule, you shouldn't be removing critical organs from people you believe are still alive; it's no better than euthanasia without informed consent.

I don't think the resolution defines "compatibility testing", so wouldn't confirmation that the donor is a universal blood donor be sufficient in nations which choose to define it that way?

See above with my hating to settle for loopholes. I'd rather the resolution be well-written enough to start with that loopholes aren't required to "fix" whatever problems exist within it.

Is there a well-known definition of "compatibility testing" in the first place?

[Chevalbourg]

Is there a well-known definition of "compatibility testing" in the first place?

So no-one actually reads long posts. Meh, here's a quick summary.

Compatibility testing, if you mean a test to see if you're compatible for a blood transfusion, would probably happen in a few steps.

First, to see if the blood donated would cause any adverse reactions, they often look for drugs and medications, recent dental work, low hemoglobin count, if the donor had a tattoo or body piercing within th elast six months (risk of hepatitis C, infections), diabetes, pregnancy, HIV, geographic diseas (malaria, hepatitis), recent major surgery, recent vaccinations. But this is for donors.

The actual test to check one's ABO blood type is ABO typing, which basically is putting the blood into some antibodies to see if it clots, then mixing the serum of your blood with other blood (A or B) to see if it clots. This should tell the patient's blood type, as well as their Rh factor (since O Rh(D)-negative is the only true universal donor blood). It's 100% accurate (except for the practitioner's mistakes), and can happen in 2 minutes or less.

Hope this answers your question, although I'm not sure if this should be added to the draft repeal.

[Auralia]

So no-one actually reads long posts. Meh, here's a quick summary.

Thanks for the summary, but I did read your earlier post. My question was more along the lines of whether the definition of "compability testing" was set in stone, or whether there were different types of varying accuracy that could be used depending on the situation, so long as they did an adequate job of "prevent[ing] negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types", as per GAR#175.

I realize you stated that there was only one type of compatibility testing, but Mousebumples's repeal seems to suggest otherwise, since it would be crazy to transfuse blood without doing any sort of testing whatsoever...?

[Chevalbourg]

Thanks for the summary, but I did read your earlier post.

Oh, erm...terribly sorry, then. Let's move on...

My question was more along the lines of whether the definition of "compability testing" was set in stone, or whether there were different types of varying accuracy that could be used depending on the situation, so long as they did an adequate job of "prevent[ing] negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types", as per GAR#175.

I realize you stated that there was only one type of compatibility testing, but Mousebumples's repeal seems to suggest otherwise, since it would be crazy to transfuse blood without doing any sort of testing whatsoever...?

My understanding of blood compatibility testing is that there is really only one method that is used; but to be fair, there are 29 other systems of determining blood type besides the ABO system, since there are about two hundred minor blood groups in the A, B, AB, O types that can complicate blood transfusions. It would be difficult and/or illogical to go through every test before transfusion, but I believe that testing does need to be performed in a manner that doesn't put the patient's life in danger (in other words, ABO typing).

I suppose the lack of a defined "compatibility testing" in the GA Resolution #175 could then become a problem.

[Auralia]

I suppose the lack of a defined "compatibility testing" in the GA Resolution #175 could then become a problem.

I don't think so. GAR#175 mandates that the compatibility testing "prevent negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types." Isn't that sufficient?

[Christian Democrats]

I suppose the lack of a defined "compatibility testing" in the GA Resolution #175 could then become a problem.

I don't think so. GAR#175 mandates that the compatibility testing "prevent negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types." Isn't that sufficient?

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).

[Mousebumples]

First and foremost, why should the GA Resolution #175 distinguish between blood, organ and tissue donations in clause 2?

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 - means to bypass the lack of mental faculties.

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.

It seems contrary to the humanitarian nature of this assembly to repeal the GA Resolution #175 on the grounds that observing the wishes of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin delays organ harvesting until clinical death, and when the benefits reaped from this resolution outweigh the harms.

A couple of general comments:
The reason that I wish the GAR#175 had distinguished between blood, organ, and tissue donation is because blood donation is - most commonly - done with live, conscious volunteers. In such a situation, informed consent absolutely makes sense.

However, depending on the health care system of a given nation, there may not be any sort of "informed consent" given prior to brain death. (Brain death is generally unpredictable and caused by an accident, injury, or the like.) In light of recent comments (such as this one), I am considering adding a "living will" related clause to my various replacements, but that's hardly the case here.

Bottom line: if there is no living will on file for a patient, donations of organs and tissue may not be completed without informed consent from live patients. Live patients are, generally speaking, those that are not clinically dead. As stated above, yes, it is more than possible for nations to loophole this resolution to stipulate that "brain dead" patients shall no longer be considered a "live patient" for the purposes of this resolution. However, I'd rather have a resolution on the books that does not require such loopholing in order for it to be workable.

Donations of organs and tissues from Beating Heart Donors (a.k.a. brain dead - or possibly completely alive in the case of bone marrow or kidney transplants) are the most successful transplants. Hearts cannot be donated from Non-Beating Heart Donors (i.e. those that are clinically, medically dead) - unless we're dealing with an FT nation, of course - which means that under this resolution heart transplants CANNOT HAPPEN.

I'm a firm believer in The Law Is What The Law Says. Bottom line, full stop.

Anyhow, thanks for the question about this clause: I'll try to clarify that section a bit, in the event that this repeal text is needed.

*snipped table due to length*

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, to the contrary of what the Mousebumples delegate is proposing, the benefits of the GA Resolution #175 outweigh the potential risk posed by mandating compatibility testing prior to blood transfusions if these procedures are handled with due dilligence by the international medical community.

Such typing typically takes approximately 2 minutes to successfully complete, yes. However, there are any number of possible (and mostly trauma) circumstances where blood typing may take longer than 2 minutes. That 2 minutes is presuming you're in a hospital with typing technology readily available.

What if EMTs are on the site of a plane crash, where some individuals may be bleeding out and need emergent transfusions? The victims on the crashed plane probably don't have their blood types readily available, so it's unknown if this person is A+ or B- or ... whatever. Stabilizing such patients for transport to a hospital will take far longer than 2 minutes. It's quite possible that more lives could be lost prior to transfusion since the compatibility testing MUST BE DONE.

I like the idea of compatibility testing - don't get me wrong. I don't want to run into problems with blood transfusion reactions. However, as I said before - The Law Is What The Law Says. This resolution specifically says: 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;

The part in blue is the MUST DO THIS portion of the clause. The remainder is the rationale. The line does not say: Orders that compatibility testing be done regarding all blood donations and transfusions in the event of a risk of incompatible blood types; (and that's a messy clause, as is, but I wanted to leave it as intact as possible) Anyhow: it doesn't say that compatibility testing must ONLY be done in the event that there's a risk of incompatibility. IT MUST BE DONE per this resolution's text.

However, given the leaps in medical safety that the GA Resolution #175 has provided (mandating the use of sterile needles, minimum safety measures, etc.), and since it respects the right to bodily sovereignty of the patients (not requiring them to donate organs, tissue or blood when brain-dead or clinically dead), we feel that it would not be appropriate to repeal this resolution, and would have to take a stance against this proposed repeal.

We welcome the Mousebumples delegate to reconsider these facts, and how they relate to their repeal; and we thank the assembly for its time.

I respect your opinion with regards to this repeal, and I hope that you will consider the replacements I have developed in the event of a successful repeal of this resolution. I agree with the advances made by this resolution; however, I feel that its flaws necessitate its repeal.

I generally have a policy of refusing to replace things that I repeal. I'm a staunch "Nat Sov" - but I feel that this is an area that would benefit from guidance from the World Assembly. As such, I am violating my own "policy" for the first time with this repeal attempt by writing my own replacements. (You will find links to each of my 3 replacements atop the OP.)

Thanks for your consideration,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Christian Democrats]

Bottom line: if there is no living will on file for a patient, donations of organs and tissue may not be completed without informed consent from live patients.

Where does the act say that informed consent must be obtained from the patients themselves?

Live patients are, generally speaking, those that are not clinically dead. As stated above, yes, it is more than possible for nations to loophole this resolution to stipulate that "brain dead" patients shall no longer be considered a "live patient" for the purposes of this resolution. However, I'd rather have a resolution on the books that does not require such loopholing in order for it to be workable.

It is not a loophole. It is an allowance for each nation to decide for itself what death means.

A person who is brain dead is dead. When someone has a failure of another organ, we do not call that person [organ] dead. We call that [organ] failure. When the brain fails, a person dies. Death is the irreversible loss of personhood.

I'm a firm believer in The Law Is What The Law Says. Bottom line, full stop.

The law does not say that consent must be obtained from patients themselves nor does it define death as cardiopulmonary death, a standard that has been abandoned by most reasonable countries.

I like the idea of compatibility testing - don't get me wrong. I don't want to run into problems with blood transfusion reactions. However, as I said before - The Law Is What The Law Says. This resolution specifically says: 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;

The part in blue is the MUST DO THIS portion of the clause. The remainder is the rationale. The line does not say: Orders that compatibility testing be done regarding all blood donations and transfusions in the event of a risk of incompatible blood types; (and that's a messy clause, as is, but I wanted to leave it as intact as possible) Anyhow: it doesn't say that compatibility testing must ONLY be done in the event that there's a risk of incompatibility. IT MUST BE DONE per this resolution's text.

The act does not say that compatibility testing must occur before a blood transfusion takes place. It could occur afterwards.

[Linux and the X]

The act does not say that compatibility testing must occur before a blood transfusion takes place. It could occur afterwards.

And then it would not prevent negative reactions, and therefore would not meet the requirement of your resolution. The truth is you know that your resolution will be repealed, and you don't want that, so you're trying to bullshit your way out of it.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Morozova rose cautioustly from her seat, "Having received overall opposition in high-level discussions in the regional forum of The North Pacific following careful evaluation by the World Assembly Affairs Ministry, Zemnaya Svoboda lodges an interim vote in opposition to this resolution."

She added, diffidently, "Should the regional stance change of course, expect our vote to change as well."

[The Dourian Embassy]

She added, diffidently, "Should the regional stance change of course, expect our vote to change as well."

Unibot might change his mind if the resolution isn't coming from me, just FYI, I doubt he's got the same level of dislike for Mousebumples as he has for me. Don't judge this one based on what he said about mine.

Edit: Oh, and this isn't the right resolution. You're looking for this one.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

She added, diffidently, "Should the regional stance change of course, expect our vote to change as well."

Unibot might change his mind if the resolution isn't coming from me, just FYI, I doubt he's got the same level of dislike for Mousebumples as he has for me. Don't judge this one based on what he said about mine.

Edit: Oh, and this isn't the right resolution. You're looking for this one.

Whoops!

[Mousebumples]

Potential alternate draft, in light of some of the discussions on-going during the present at-vote period. Comments and critiques are welcome. I've removed some arguments all together** and inserted some new ones that I feel are also strong and worthy of consideration.

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #175 | Proposed by: Mousebumples

Argument:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

LAUDS the intent of GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act" to provide access to blood and organ donations.

BELIEVES, however, that a number of faults in this resolution's text may limit the effectiveness of the resolution in question.

UNDERSTANDS the meritorious intent of Clause 7, which states: 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);

DOCUMENTS that as the resolution in question fails to differentiate between life-threatening infections and diseases, as there are some infections and diseases that will not put recipients at risk. However, due to the poor wording of this resolution, individuals with high cholesterol, cytomegalovirus, and/or hyperthyroidism would be prohibited from donating as signs of their condition(s) may be detected in blood, organs, tissues, and/or components.

WISHES that such individuals were permitted to donate blood, organs, tissues, and/or components due to the scarcity of such resources within the span of our multi-verse.

BELIEVES, additionally, that individuals in WA member nations should not need to suffer such discrimination that prevents their ability to donate when they don't have any condition that would impact the health of the patients who would benefit from their donations.

NOTES that Clause 5 reads as follows: Orders that compatibility testing be done regarding all blood donations and transfusions in order to prevent negative transfusion reactions resulting from incompatible blood types;

REALIZES that this clause requires that compatibility testing be done prior to all blood transfusions, as that is the only way to truly act to protect negative transfusion reactions.

REGRETS the wording of such a clause as it would prevent the transfusion of blood from a universal blood donor in the event of an urgent trauma situation where the required delay for compatibility testing could mean the difference between life and death.

WORRIES that while Clause 1 of this resolution legalizes donation, transplantation, and transfusion, no exception is made for individuals and/or nations who may have an objection to such a process on religious grounds.

HOPES that the WA will consider future legislation on blood and blood component donation and organ and tissue transplantation to rectify the aforementioned flaws.

REPEALS GA#175, "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

**Please note: my removal of certain arguments is NOT a concession on the merits of those argument. It's rather a concession that certain arguments may be too technical to be able to easily explain within a repeal text. If anyone is especially attached to the potentially removed clauses, they could certainly be re-added or perhaps expanded upon to provide additional clarity.

Thanks for your consideration,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal suffers from many of the same defects that are present in the other repeal proposal.

In addition, there is a problem with this clause.

However, due to the poor wording of this resolution, individuals with high cholesterol, cytomegalovirus, and/or hyperthyroidism would be prohibited from donating as signs of their condition(s) may be detected in blood, organs, tissues, and/or components.

1. High cholesterol is not a disease or infection.

2. You would not want any kind of virus to be present in an organ donation. Organ recipients must take immunosuppressive drugs so that their bodies accept the transplants. With a weakened immune system, any sort of virus easily could cause death.

3. Hyperthyroidism does not infect or cause disease to any organs except the thyroid glands. The transplantation of all other organs from someone with hyperthyroidism would be permitted under the terms of the resolution, which bans the "transplantation or transfusion of infected and/or diseased blood, organs, tissues, or components thereof."

It is really quite asinine to say that an organ is infected with hyperthyroidism (the excessive production of hormones by the thyroid).

The resolution bans transplantation or transfusion if and only if the organs, blood, or tissues are infected themselves. As a matter of basic medical ethics, no doctor should infect someone who is already ill with yet another disease (regardless of the circumstances).

Furthermore, a repeal already has been attempted on these grounds. It failed 70 percent to 30 percent.

[Linux and the X]

This proposal suffers from many of the same defects that are present in the other repeal proposal.

Primarily, it's a repeal of your resolution, and that makes you sad.

[Mousebumples]

This proposal suffers from many of the same defects that are present in the other repeal proposal.

Namely that it's trying to repeal your resolution, yes.

1. High cholesterol is not a disease or infection.

Are you SERIOUS? High cholesterol is NOT a disease? If that is the case, then why is there this whole page about the different KINDS of high cholesterol disease?

1. Peripheral Artery Disease (look, the name DISEASE is right in the name!)
2. Atherosclerosis or Arteriosclerotic Vascular Disease
3. Familial Hypercholesterolemia
4. Hypobetalipoproteinemia
5. Hypoalphalipoproteinemia
6. Lipodystrophy

There are plenty more examples I could list, but I think that starts to refute your point that high cholesterol is NOT a disease. It is a disease and one that impacts the lives of many individuals on an international level.

No, it is not a disease that should affect the quality of blood, tissue, organ, or component donations in and of itself, but it CAN be detected in the blood. After all, a simple blood test is what is used to diagnose and monitor patients who may have high cholesterol.

2. You would not want any kind of virus to be present in an organ donation. Organ recipients must take immunosuppressive drugs so that their bodies accept the transplants. With a weakened immune system, any sort of virus easily could cause death.

When dealing with blood donation, that is not the case. From Wikipedia: Cytomegalovirus is a special case in donor testing in that many donors will test positive for it. The virus is not a hazard to a healthy recipient, but it can harm infants and other recipients with weak immune systems.

So far as organ donation goes, I'd like to provide this link for your perusal:

CMV stands for cytomegalovirus. Most of the population has been exposed to it and will rarely cause any problem to healthy persons. But it could cause a lot of trouble for patients who have had organ transplants. CMV is from the family of herpes virus such as chickenpox, infectious mononucleosis and fever blisters (herpes I) and most people have been infected by the time they reach adulthood. The virus will remain dormant for years and sometime can flare up with minimal or no symptoms.

For organ transplant patients, the CMV virus is a problem because of the weakened immune system. At the worst case scenario it could be fatal. Most transplant candidates have already been infected in their lives without even knowing about it. The rare ones who have never been exposed will most likely get it from the donor. Very few lucky recipients with no prior exposure to the virus will get an organ from someone not exposed as well. Those cases represent less than 10% of all organ transplants but could potentially receive it by a blood transfusion. The transplant community feels there are more benefits to transplant a CMV positive organ to a non-positive patient than risk because organs are so rare. Organ transplant candidates have a lot more chance dying while waiting for an organ than dying from CMV itself.

It's clear to me, from your arguments, that you've done only very general research on this subject. Unless you're preparing to make a RL =/= NS argument here (which seems like grasping at straws, if you ask me), this argument against my repeal text goes out the window.

3. Hyperthyroidism does not infect or cause disease to any organs except the thyroid glands. The transplantation of all other organs from someone with hyperthyroidism would be permitted under the terms of the resolution, which bans the "transplantation or transfusion of infected and/or diseased blood, organs, tissues, or components thereof."

It is really quite asinine to say that an organ is infected with hyperthyroidism (the excessive production of hormones by the thyroid).

You clearly don't understand the meaning of infection. Infectious disease (i.e. CMV, as listed above, HIV, the common cold, etc.) are all examples of an INFECTION. Diseases (such as high cholesterol, hyperthyroidism, diabetes, etc.) are often present in the blood and may potentially impact organ and tissues as well as the blood cells.

Also, you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the clause in question is NOT restricted to only organ donations. Blood donations are impacted to, and by your lack of argument there, should I take that as a tacit agreement in the merits of this argument?

The resolution bans transplantation or transfusion if and only if the organs, blood, or tissues are infected themselves. As a matter of basic medical ethics, no doctor should infect someone who is already ill with yet another disease (regardless of the circumstances).

Wow, so you're a "doctor" now, that you're speaking on the topic of medical ethics? *raises an eyebrow* That's an oversimplification, and in a "perfect world," I'd probably agree with you. However, if someone is ill and dying from liver failure, even a CMV-infected liver could be enough to SAVE THEIR LIFE.

Further, all of the aforementioned conditions would show up in blood tests, which would result in the blood in question needing to be considered to be "diseased." Such blood, then, could not be used for a transfusion - even if the recipient already has the diseases (or infection, such as CMV!) in question.

Furthermore, a repeal already has been attempted on these grounds. It failed 70 percent to 30 percent.

Ah, but I don't think the Dourian Embassy made the argument that I'm making above.

I welcome further discussion on this topic, although I think you are reading your own resolution with rose-colored glasses, so as to see your own work in the best possible light. Doesn't mean that it can't be repealed all the same.

[Ossitania]

We are highly supportive of the efforts by Mousebumpleonian delegation and are far more inclined to trust their medical knowledge than that of the ambassador from Christian Democrats.

[Mousebumples]

We are highly supportive of the efforts by Mousebumpleonian delegation and are far more inclined to trust their medical knowledge than that of the ambassador from Christian Democrats.

I'd like to thank Ambassador McGregor for his comments and support.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island