[PASSED] Organ and Blood Donations Act

[Christian Democrats]

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

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

The General Assembly,

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

Believing there should be minimum safety standards in these areas,

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

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

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

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

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

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 14, 2011

REACHED QUORUM ON DECEMBER 15, 2011

VOTING BEGAN ON DECEMBER 19, 2011

PASSED 7,954 TO 3,791 ON DECEMBER 23, 2011

[Sovreignry]

One issue I find is that it should be an opt-in program instead of an opt-out program due to the fact that some religions do not allow the body to be cut open, and the burden of red tape should not be on them.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I like it and this raises a good point.

[Puissancevise]

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

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Tentative support.

[Linux and the X]

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

What is the meaning of live in this clause? Extraction for organ donations is generally performed while the donor is kept "alive" in some sense by life support machines, as removal from life support would result in deterioration. Would this require informed consent for all organ donations?

[Bears Armed]

5. Requires that all donated blood be tested for infections such as the human immunodeficiency virus and that all infected blood be treated as a biohazard and be quickly and safely discarded;

What does "such as" mean in this context? Does it mean "including but not limited to", so that even Ursine blood donations that are going to be used on other Ursines rather than on Humans would have to be tested -- needlessly -- for human immunodeficiency virus? Does it mean "of the same family of viruses as"? What?

[Alqania]

"Interesting", Christine mused. "Could it perhaps be elaborated on how this is a Human Rights proposal however? I am not entirely convinced that this proposal, as currently worded, adequately fits that category. While on the important topic of human rights though, the Queendom would like to see something added to this proposal to the effect of banning discrimination in accepting donors. While we would of course not want it to duplicate anything in the CoCR, we would like to see the common practice of declining donations from people based on sexual orientation ended and there is probably reason to include other grounds as well, such as gender, species, ethnicity, religion and ability. Regardless of one's position on whether people have a right to be donors, discrimination in this area would most definitely go against the intention of this proposal, if I may be so presumptuous as to say I have understood the intention."

[Southern Patriots]

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

"Perhaps some oversight by designating what can be a donation center, or licensing them, to ensure a black market in organs donated with "consent" doesn't arise?"

[Dilange]

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

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

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

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

[Christian Democrats]

One issue I find is that it should be an opt-in program instead of an opt-out program due to the fact that some religions do not allow the body to be cut open, and the burden of red tape should not be on them.

The opt-out clause isn't mandatory for this reason. In my nation, there is a national opt-out system of organ donation. All members of religions opposed to organ donation are considered to have opted out by the very selection of such religions.

I oppose it very strongly. Organ donation is compulsory in The Democratic States of Puissancevise.

Where is there a ban on compulsory organ harvesting in this proposal?

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

What is the meaning of live in this clause? Extraction for organ donations is generally performed while the donor is kept "alive" in some sense by life support machines, as removal from life support would result in deterioration. Would this require informed consent for all organ donations?

This depends on your nation's statutory definition of death; the debate on when death occurs is an issue that the General Assembly should leave alone. Because organ harvesting can be done after death, I think nations should err on the side of requiring consent. By not opting out of an opt-out organ donation system, a person could be considered to have provided informed consent, albeit tacitly.

5. Requires that all donated blood be tested for infections such as the human immunodeficiency virus and that all infected blood be treated as a biohazard and be quickly and safely discarded;

What does "such as" mean in this context? Does it mean "including but not limited to", so that even Ursine blood donations that are going to be used on other Ursines rather than on Humans would have to be tested -- needlessly -- for human immunodeficiency virus? Does it mean "of the same family of viruses as"? What?

I'll remove that phrase.

"Interesting", Christine mused. "Could it perhaps be elaborated on how this is a Human Rights proposal however? I am not entirely convinced that this proposal, as currently worded, adequately fits that category. While on the important topic of human rights though, the Queendom would like to see something added to this proposal to the effect of banning discrimination in accepting donors. While we would of course not want it to duplicate anything in the CoCR, we would like to see the common practice of declining donations from people based on sexual orientation ended and there is probably reason to include other grounds as well, such as gender, species, ethnicity, religion and ability. Regardless of one's position on whether people have a right to be donors, discrimination in this area would most definitely go against the intention of this proposal, if I may be so presumptuous as to say I have understood the intention."

This proposal would advance the rights to life and health.

I've considered inserting such a clause, but it seems that COCR already covers this (see GAR 35, art. 1, § C). I agree that non-heterosexuals should not categorically be denied the ability to become organ and blood donors.

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

"Perhaps some oversight by designating what can be a donation center, or licensing them, to ensure a black market in organs donated with "consent" doesn't arise?"

I'm an international federalist; I don't support a world unitary state. I think enforcement of a proposal like this should be left to individual member states.

[Christian Democrats]

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

I've altered the proposal, and the mandatory testing provision that applied to donated blood has been extended to cover organs and tissues.

[Sovreignry]

One issue I find is that it should be an opt-in program instead of an opt-out program due to the fact that some religions do not allow the body to be cut open, and the burden of red tape should not be on them.

The opt-out clause isn't mandatory for this reason. In my nation, there is a national opt-out system of organ donation. All members of religions opposed to organ donation are considered to have opted out by the very selection of such religions.

My bad. For some reason I thought it was a mandatory clause not and urge clause. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

[Reverend Lyndon Love]

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

[Puissancevise]

I oppose it very strongly. Organ donation is compulsory in The Democratic States of Puissancevise.

Where is there a ban on compulsory organ harvesting in this proposal?

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

There.

[Christian Democrats]

Where is there a ban on compulsory organ harvesting in this proposal?

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

There.

You steal organs from live patients!!!

[Puissancevise]

There.

You steal organs from live patients!!!

Oh. Missed this part:

2. Prohibits the removal of organs, tissues, blood, and components thereof from live patients without informed consent unless otherwise dictated in another one of this Assembly's resolutions;

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We support this proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

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

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

Does anyone not agree with either of these changes? Should the proposal strength be "strong"? Do any of you have other suggestions?

[Kilel]

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

EDIT: Uh... I think my question was just answered before I could post :|

[Morlago]

Full support.

[Christian Democrats]

Proposal submitted. A telegram campaign will be launched later today.

[Frenequesta]

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

[Christian Democrats]

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

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

EDIT: It's a nonmandatory clause.

[Frenequesta]

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

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

EDIT: It's a nonmandatory clause.

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

However, in light of our ability to grow organs, we express another concern. Is the international donation clause intended to limit nations to only donating organs to other nations, or can we sell our surplus organs since that is not directly covered by the proposal?