[DRAFT] Repeal "Blood Donation Safety Etc"

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: Replacement

---

The Duke of Magecastle, Jeramy Vliet, had just finished leading The Ice States' for now successful negotiations with The Golden Throne to secure aid for the crisis The Ice States is facing at the hands of various crausader nations.

When the Ice diplomats left the negotiation room, however, he still had one more duty to do that day: present the mission's latest project to the international scene. He was tired, but could not let down the nation. So he crossed sovereignties to enter the A5 building at Magecastle, which was the World Assembly Mission room. He grabbed the copy of the draft, and put it into the photocopying machine. When a copy came out of the machine, he sighed, and entered the World Assembly portal. The world had blackened around him, until he appeared at the World Assembly Headquarters.

He went up to the Drafting space in the WA Headquarters, and placed the photocopy of the draft on an empty drafting desk _

The World Assembly,

Reaffirming its support for equality for minorities from discrimination, and recognising the noble aims of the resolution to promote this aim in the scope of blood donation -- in particular lifting discriminatory restrictions on donation of blood by minority groups,

Noting, however, the several flaws present in the resolution necessitating its repeal,

Finds as follows _

• Its criminalisation of knowing donation of blood carrying a disease -- which makes no exception for donation for medical research -- dramatically harms the quality of world medical research, as it fails to recognise that blood carrying a disease may very well be useful for medical research -- especially that on the disease carried by that blood -- even if the blood would be unusable for administration to a patient.
  
  
• Further, the effects of the resolutions "Biomedical Donation Omnibus Act" and "Biomedical Donor Rights" each supersede nearly all of the Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act's other protections, rendering the resolution obsolete and redundant.
  
  
• Even without the Biomedical Donation Omnibus Act, the resolution's attempts to stop discrimination in blood donation are still inadequate, as the resolution does not stop member nations from immediately discarding donated blood due to the donor's belonging to a minority group, as long as blood donation clinics do not turn away prospective donors due to their belonging to that minority group. Thus, it does not protect any equality rights in blood donation.

For these reasons, be the "Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act" repealed.

He sat down at the desk. "Discuss. And I assure you, we will only submit this once the replacement resolution has passed too." he says, smirking annoyingly.

---

Ooc: Does this happen in real life? Yes -- for example, in Canada donating blood that has or is likely to have malaria or vCJD for research is perfectly legal; nb restrictions on donating HIV and Hepatitis blood for research are for the donor's health, rather than risk of transmission; the Stanford Blood Center has similar exceptions allowing those at risk of blood-borne diseases that otherwise would make one ineligible to donate blood for administration to donate for research; see also this paper on the subject. Not only is applying the same safety standard for research and administration donations ridiculous, but establishing criminal penalties for donation for research is even more absurd.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Support for repeal and not replace, and I certainly don't support a repeal based on the grounds. For example, the interpretation in the second item of your list is certainly bad faith and won't ever happen. I could deconstruct the rest but I have better things to do, like file my toenails. Maybe when I get the energy to care I will send a counter campaign against this tripe.

[Tinhampton]

support in principle

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“I agree with Dr. Obama that the second item of the list that such a scenario is unlikely to happen. A blood drive operator would have to willingly wish to discriminate and even then would have to do deep research on if person X has a certain blood type, all before person X arrives at the blood drive. At this point, you might as well claim that the blood type discrimination scenario is pure nitpicking.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Hulldom]

“No support without a replacement.”

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

The next day, the Duke again went to the World Assembly Headquarters first thing after starting work. He turned on the recordings of the latest feedback provided by ambassadors, addressed the microphone at the desk, and replied to each of the comments by ambassadors _

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Support for repeal and not replace, and I certainly don't support a repeal based on the grounds. For example, the interpretation in the second item of your list is certainly bad faith and won't ever happen. I could deconstruct the rest but I have better things to do, like file my toenails. Maybe when I get the energy to care I will send a counter campaign against this tripe.

“I agree with Dr. Obama that the second item of the list that such a scenario is unlikely to happen. A blood drive operator would have to willingly wish to discriminate and even then would have to do deep research on if person X has a certain blood type, all before person X arrives at the blood drive. At this point, you might as well claim that the blood type discrimination scenario is pure nitpicking.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"Understood. The second line has been removed."

“No support without a replacement.”

"There is a replacement in drafting by the Democratic Stellar Union. This will not be submitted until that replacement is fully drafted and ready to be submitted too."

[Simone Republic]

“No support without a replacement.”

Concur. To requote my comment on the proposed replacement:

OOC: the US FDA only rescinded the vCJD related blood donor ban on anyone who lived in the UK between 1980-1996 (and a similar ban on Europeans donating blood) in May of this year, and Australia only in April of this year. Some countries still have this ban.

I think we should accommodate blood / tissue etc donation bans in the event another new disease emerges that cannot be detected through tests.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: A shameful proposal. The perplexed clause is in fact perplexing us, as it merely states people may be prohibited. There is no mandate there, so repealing this resolution will not make a difference. The target resolution does not cause a shortage in blood donations.

Also, a nation in need of donations for medical purposes would not reasonably interpret unsafe as you have done. It can easily be interpreted as unsafe for people if used in a donation, but if diseased blood is screened for research purposes and there is no risk to the health of researchers then it is not 'unsafe'.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: A shameful proposal. The perplexed clause is in fact perplexing us, as it merely states people may be prohibited. There is no mandate there, so repealing this resolution will not make a difference. The target resolution does not cause a shortage in blood donations.

"Besides the fact that it seems to misunderstand how blood donation works, it allows member nations to do something bad," replies the Duke, "and stands in the way of legislation to prevent them from doing that, as the replacement does."

Also, a nation in need of donations for medical purposes would not reasonably interpret unsafe as you have done. It can easily be interpreted as unsafe for people if used in a donation, but if diseased blood is screened for research purposes and there is no risk to the health of researchers then it is not 'unsafe'.

"This is not true. First, this is not about the rare case where blood donated for research on a disease is urgent. This is about hindering research in general, regardless of whether that research is actually urgent. Second, that is not what the word unsafe means. Unsafe just means -- since apparently this isn't self-evident -- not safe, which in turn just means that something is unable to cause harm. Blood carrying an illness very much has the ability to transmit that illness -- in research where it'd be used responsibly it isn't particularly likely a scenario, but it is able to happen, and so it is 'unsafe'."

As the Duke grows a smirk on his face, he says, "I suppose if it comes to it, your non-member nation's singular vote will defeat this. I do hope it doesn't come to that."

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Just because your nation is foolish enough to employ such tortured interpretations of words does not mean that everyone else does. To assert that the World Assembly nations would self sabotage themselves this way is ludicrous.

Also, underestimating our nation will certainly bring about dire consequences for your future here. Watch your tongue, unless you are deliberately trying to provoke our wrath.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Just because your nation is foolish enough to employ such tortured interpretations of words does not mean that everyone else does. To assert that the World Assembly nations would self sabotage themselves this way is ludicrous.

Also, underestimating our nation will certainly bring about dire consequences for your future here. Watch your tongue, unless you are deliberately trying to provoke our wrath.

Ic: "The interpretation taken by the repeal is the most natural and it's the most obvious way to read the clause in question. It may be possible to define unsafe the way you are, but I'd imagine you'd have to go digging hard for a dictionary that supports you. Er, not one made by some state-sponsored Obaman company."

Ooc: I usually find dictionary-wank to be obnoxious, but here I cannot find one colourable definition that isn't "able to cause harm" or something that means the same thing.

[West Barack and East Obama]

OOC: A blood donation with type B antigens is "able to cause harm" to people with type A blood. If you are arguing that this blood is 'unsafe', then that means the target resolution bans all blood donations. Well, it doesn't, so your reading of 'unsafe' is plainly unreasonable and so is your argument.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

OOC: A blood donation with type B antigens is "able to cause harm" to people with type A blood. If you are arguing that this blood is 'unsafe', then that means the target resolution bans all blood donations. Well, it doesn't, so your reading of 'unsafe' is plainly unreasonable and so is your argument.

Ooc: You aren't going to get AHTR from, say, a needlestick injury. To get an immune reaction, it has to be a (relatively) substantial amount of blood, which would almost always require the deliberate administration of blood. Type B blood is not necessarily able to cause harm in itself -- however, administrating type B blood to someone with type A blood absolutely can cause harm -- cf blood carrying, say, hepatitis B, which can absolutely cause the disease to be transmitted even just upon eg contact with a wound or a needle injury. "Unsafe" in the target applies to the blood, not its use.

[West Barack and East Obama]

OOC: A blood donation with type B antigens is "able to cause harm" to people with type A blood. If you are arguing that this blood is 'unsafe', then that means the target resolution bans all blood donations. Well, it doesn't, so your reading of 'unsafe' is plainly unreasonable and so is your argument.

Ooc: You aren't going to get AHTR from, say, a needlestick injury. To get an immune reaction, it has to be a (relatively) substantial amount of blood, which would almost always require the deliberate administration of blood. Type B blood is not necessarily able to cause harm in itself -- however, administrating type B blood to someone with type A blood absolutely can cause harm -- cf blood carrying, say, hepatitis B, which can absolutely cause the disease to be transmitted even just upon eg contact with a wound or a needle injury. "Unsafe" in the target applies to the blood, not its use.

OOC: That's how you interpret it. It is not unreasonable for every other nation to view 'diseased blood stored and transported securely' as safe, especially since defining 'safe' as 'doesnt harm you if you touch it with an open wound' is how you have done it.

Insisting on retaining this incredibly weak argument will only serve to defeat your proposal.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: You aren't going to get AHTR from, say, a needlestick injury. To get an immune reaction, it has to be a (relatively) substantial amount of blood, which would almost always require the deliberate administration of blood. Type B blood is not necessarily able to cause harm in itself -- however, administrating type B blood to someone with type A blood absolutely can cause harm -- cf blood carrying, say, hepatitis B, which can absolutely cause the disease to be transmitted even just upon eg contact with a wound or a needle injury. "Unsafe" in the target applies to the blood, not its use.

OOC: That's how you interpret it. It is not unreasonable for every other nation to view 'diseased blood stored and transported securely' as safe, especially since defining 'safe' as 'doesnt harm you if you touch it with an open wound' is how you have done it.

Insisting on retaining this incredibly weak argument will only serve to defeat your proposal.

"Once again, disembodied voice, 'unsafe' applies to the blood, not how it is used or stored or transported. Blood carrying HIV does indeed inherently have the potential to cause harm."

"Furthermore, the resolution is criminalising knowing donation of unsafe blood, not the existence or use of unsafe blood. Even if we accept your premise that blood ceases to be unsafe if stored properly, it was still unsafe upon its donation, and its donation, no matter for what purpose, is therefore still criminalised by the resolution."

[West Barack and East Obama]

OOC: That's how you interpret it. It is not unreasonable for every other nation to view 'diseased blood stored and transported securely' as safe, especially since defining 'safe' as 'doesnt harm you if you touch it with an open wound' is how you have done it.

Insisting on retaining this incredibly weak argument will only serve to defeat your proposal.

"Once again, disembodied voice, 'unsafe' applies to the blood, not how it is used or stored or transported. Blood carrying HIV does indeed inherently have the potential to cause harm."

OOC: Replying to my IC comment OOC, then replying to OOC using IC and then calling me a disembodied voice really takes the cake. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time debating with someone clearly acting in bad faith. All blood has the potential to cause harm. Your reading of 'unsafe' is unreasonable and only done to pad out an already weak argument for repeal. I would like to hear a second opinion (from a member of GenSec) but I don't think the scenario which you describe in the proposal is completely unavoidable.

Anyways, I'm done replying to you and any of your other posts. Consider yourself on my foe list. Have a day.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Once again, disembodied voice, 'unsafe' applies to the blood, not how it is used or stored or transported. Blood carrying HIV does indeed inherently have the potential to cause harm."

OOC: Replying to my IC comment OOC, then replying to OOC using IC and then calling me a disembodied voice really takes the cake. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time debating with someone clearly acting in bad faith. All blood has the potential to cause harm. Your reading of 'unsafe' is unreasonable and only done to pad out an already weak argument for repeal. I would like to hear a second opinion (from a member of GenSec) but I don't think the scenario which you describe in the proposal is completely unavoidable.

Anyways, I'm done replying to you and any of your other posts. Consider yourself on my foe list. Have a day.

Ooc: You know, originally I was intending on discontinuing this back-and-forth, but actually I'll be giving a down-to-earth reply, even though I don't expect you to read this. You are entitled to your opinion, and it is well within your right to oppose this draft and/or its arguments. However, the hostility is completely unnecessary.

I also didn't even reply to your Ic post Ooc. I replied to your Ic post Ic, and only went Ooc to support my Ic statement with real-world facts -- not as a direct reply to your post. It was, in fact, you who replied to my Ic comment Ooc.

As to replying to a "disembodied voice", that is a well-attested, in character mode of replying to a post for which there is no definite Ic character to reply to -- for example, if someone has not developed an ambassador character, or to reply to an Ooc post. Maybe I should have kept that post Ooc, but in no way is it an Ooc attack or jab.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Bump.

[West Barack and East Obama]

OOC: Couldn’t care about the rest of the proposal, but if this is submitted in its current form I will challenge it for honest mistake violations.

Donation of diseased blood solely for research is not effectively banned. As you demonstrated yourself earlier, the definition of unsafe is malleable enough that you jumped from interpreting it as "able to cause harm" to "able to cause harm if it drops onto an open wound". I do not believe in the slightest that nations are unable in any circumstance to interpret unsafe in a way that doesn’t ban the donation of blood (handled safely) for research. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but surely defining safe blood as blood that’s contained safely that it won’t harm the people handling it is not too far fetched and "bad faith" as an interpretation?

Also, even if everything you’ve said is true, donation of diseased blood is not effectively banned. For example, blood from a person who has sickle cell anaemia and no other disease is as safe as any other blood to anybody who touches it or has it transfused into their body. Yet, it is diseased, and according to your resolution it is banned. That is not true in the slightest.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

OOC: Couldn’t care about the rest of the proposal, but if this is submitted in its current form I will challenge it for honest mistake violations.

Donation of diseased blood solely for research is not effectively banned. As you demonstrated yourself earlier, the definition of unsafe is malleable enough that you jumped from interpreting it as "able to cause harm" to "able to cause harm if it drops onto an open wound".

Ooc: You are misrepresenting my views. I brought up blood coming in to contact with an open wound -- as well as a needlestick injury scenario -- to make the point that Type B blood is not able to cause harm in itself to those with Type A blood -- its administration does. The target's "unsafe" qualifier is applying to "blood", not how it is used.

I do not believe in the slightest that nations are unable in any circumstance to interpret unsafe in a way that doesn’t ban the donation of blood (handled safely) for research. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but surely defining safe blood as blood that’s contained safely that it won’t harm the people handling it is not too far fetched and "bad faith" as an interpretation?

Its storage and use may be safe. The blood may not. Further, the wording "knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood" -- which is what is being criminalised -- implies that "unsafe" applies at the moment of donation. Even if we accept your premise that blood ceases to be unsafe if it is used safely after donation, it still would have been unsafe on the moment of donation -- even at the donation clinic, there's a possibility of -- for example -- a needlestick injury.

Care to share how you are interpreting "unsafe" that blood carrying HIV is safe even just upon donation?

Also, even if everything you’ve said is true, donation of diseased blood is not effectively banned. For example, blood from a person who has sickle cell anaemia and no other disease is as safe as any other blood to anybody who touches it or has it transfused into their body. Yet, it is diseased, and according to your resolution it is banned. That is not true in the slightest.

This is a fair point. Done.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Since I forgot to mention this, this has been submitted for a test run here.

[West Barack and East Obama]

The target's "unsafe" qualifier is applying to "blood", not how it is used.

According to who? Your dictionaries don't say that at all. This is simply your interpretation. Other nations are perfectly capable of reading it differently.

Its storage and use may be safe. The blood may not. Further, the wording "knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood" -- which is what is being criminalised -- implies that "unsafe" applies at the moment of donation. Even if we accept your premise that blood ceases to be unsafe if it is used safely after donation, it still would have been unsafe on the moment of donation -- even at the donation clinic, there's a possibility of -- for example -- a needlestick injury.

Of course there's a possibility. It is impossible to ensure 0% chance of anything. But if you take measures and precautions to make this possibility negligible, then it should be safe. The donation of blood such that the possibility of a needlestick injury is close to none will make it safe.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

The target's "unsafe" qualifier is applying to "blood", not how it is used.

According to who? Your dictionaries don't say that at all. This is simply your interpretation. Other nations are perfectly capable of reading it differently.

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

[West Barack and East Obama]

According to who? Your dictionaries don't say that at all. This is simply your interpretation. Other nations are perfectly capable of reading it differently.

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

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