[PASSED] Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"

by **Sciongrad** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:47 pm

PrussianEmpire wrote:I never said anything about growing an artificial lung. I was referring the the heart, which would not be grown either, it'd be a pump in which you would wear a little back pack. I think it is unbelievable that this bill is passing even though the only "argument" is that you cannot get an organ with HIV in it, even though the way the original resolution worded it is the only practical way to word it without providing a loophole to put an HIV heart in there without the person wanting it, which then YOU would repeal, since thats all you can seem to do.

Ambassador, the point you seem to be missing is that receiving an HIV-infected organ or tissue is often time more preferable than imminent death by organ failure; HIV positive patients are also prohibited from receiving HIV positive organs, as per the original resolution - this is, of course, only one argument raised in the repeal. Furthermore, His Excellency Eberhart has proposed a comprehensive set of replacements that it seems you've neglected to read (OOC: all of which, can be found in the OP, as can several legitimate sources that may be worth the read if you're interested in the justification behind the arguments in this repeal.). I do advise you read through the proposed replacements before rendering further judgement on this repeal.

by **Euronesia** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:15 am

Euronesia have voted in favor of the GA Resolution repealing the "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

by **Damanucus** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:54 am

Sciongrad wrote:...HIV positive patients are also prohibited from receiving HIV positive organs, as per the original resolution...

[sighs] I have spent so long standing on the fence, then I read that sentence—a sentence which you have, on too many occasions to count, Nikolas, made evident in your debates for the repeal. I am admitting obstinance to my standing; you have my full, if somewhat belated, support.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

by **Mousebumples** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:12 am

PrussianEmpire wrote:I never said anything about growing an artificial lung. I was referring the the heart, which would not be grown either, it'd be a pump in which you would wear a little back pack. I think it is unbelievable that this bill is passing even though the only "argument" is that you cannot get an organ with HIV in it, even though the way the original resolution worded it is the only practical way to word it without providing a loophole to put an HIV heart in there without the person wanting it, which then YOU would repeal, since thats all you can seem to do.

No, I'm sorry, but once again you are incorrect - on a number of levels.

YOU SAID: even though the only "argument" is that you cannot get an organ with HIV in it
Patently untrue. I list MULTIPLE arguments against. Here's a quick (summarized) rundown:

CMV-positive blood cannot be used for transfusions.
1. It cannot be transfused to individuals who are already CMV-positive.
2. It cannot be transfused to otherwise healthy individuals who generally are unaffected by such transfusions and show no symptoms.
CMV-positive organ cannot be used for transplants
1. Per the research I've cited above, only about 10% (in the US, granted) transplants are from CMV-negative donors to CMV-negative recipients. That's a substantial number of organs that are disallowed under this resolution.
2. There are many good anti-viral medications that help to prevent the transmission of CMV, from a CMV-positive donor to CMV-negative receipient.
3. There are many good anti-viral medications that can help to treat & manage CMV for organ recipients, in the event that the prophylaxis is unsuccessful at preventing transmission of the disease.
HBV-positive donors cannot donate to HBV-positive recipients, even though such transplants are already allowed in the US and many other nations all around the (RL) world.
HCV-positive donors cannot donate to HCV-positive recipients, even though such transplants are already allowed in the US and many other nations around the (RL) world.
HIV-positive donors cannot donate to HIV-positive recipients. While all HIV-positive donors are forbidden from donating organs due to the 1980s law, there has been much discussion in the healthcare world over the past year or so to consider changing this. HIV is no longer the "death sentence" that it once was. Many individuals with HIV/AIDS are living long and productive lives, thanks to the many forms of anti-retroviral therapies that now exist.
This resolution actively prevents health care systems from making smart, common-sense decisions (backed by medical research) that are in the best interests of their patients

I can't speak for you, but that looks like a whole lot more than just one reason, don't you think?

YOU SAID: the way the original resolution worded it is the only practical way to word it without providing a loophole to put an HIV heart in there without the person wanting it,
No. Again, this argument is patently untrue.

There's this funny thing that we have in healthcare - it's called informed consent. Definition: An informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.

The way that my replacements are currently written, testing of donated organs and tissues is required. Therefore, informed consent would - naturally - include the presence of any disease or otherwise harmful pathogen. If you don't want an HIV-positive heart - no one can or will make you take one. Heck, if you want to continue to outlaw HIV-positive transplants in your nation, you're more than able to do so.

YOU SAID:then YOU would repeal, since thats all you can seem to do.
Interesting, that you seem to think you know so much about my resolution writing history here. While I will admit that the passage of this repeal will make me "resolution-negative" in the GA/WA (I've presently passed 4 pieces of new legislation and 4 repeals in the GA and 1 of each in the SC), if you include my historical resolution, it will merely make me "resolution-neutral."

Further, as stated by the lovely ambassador from Sciongrad, I currently have three (3) replacements in the works. They're all posted on this forum, with links to each of them in the OP, so it's not like I've been hiding them anywhere if you've been interested in looking at them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that writing those would qualify as writing a repeal. Then again, maybe with all of your own resolution writing history you know more on the subject of repeals than I do.

You're mad that I'm having success repealing a law that you like. I get it. However, don't think that I (or any of the other ambassadors in this chamber) will let you spout off baseless statements without being challenged.

Yours in repealing actively harmful legislation,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

by **Mousebumples** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:15 am

Euronesia wrote:Euronesia have voted in favor of the GA Resolution repealing the "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

Damanucus wrote:[sighs] I have spent so long standing on the fence, then I read that sentence—a sentence which you have, on too many occasions to count, Nikolas, made evident in your debates for the repeal. I am admitting obstinance to my standing; you have my full, if somewhat belated, support

Thanks for your support, guys. And if either of you (especially you, Ambassador Orman) have specific concerns regarding the wording of any of the replacements, please do let me know. I've tried to clarify some things that were raised as concerns during this repeal process, so if anything is unclear or insufficient, just comment in those threads.

Cheers!

by **Mikeswill** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:33 am

Once again members of the World Assembly are seeking to repeal legislation that was supported by the majority of votes (68% - 32%) based upon a narrow interpretation of one portion of the legislation rather than a flaw relative to the whole body of law. It proves that it is very easy to convince Nations to vote against with a “For” vote through rhetoric.

Mikeswill voted for the initial legislation and does not find the repeal compelling a change in position. As such, Mikeswill voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"".

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region

by **Alqania** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:18 am

"The Queendom has voted in favour of this repeal", Lord Raekevik announced, "but I would like to point one thing out with regards to HIV-positive donors and HIV-positive recipients. There may be cause for national governments to keep restrictions on the donation of tissue between HIV-positive people. This is because a person may be infected with more than one strain of HIV, which is often called 'dual HIV infection' or 'multiple HIV infection'. There are studies indicating that dual or multiple infection accelerates progression to AIDS and if so then it would seem to potentially be in the interest of HIV-positive recipients to receive HIV-negative tissue. But, the tricky thing here is that there are also studies to the contrary, even going so far as indicating that dually HIV infected people live longer lives than those infected with only one strain of the virus. So the situation seems a bit unclear as it is and I imagine that future national regulations on this matter will be dependent on the findings of further research in this area."

by **PrussianEmpire** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:09 pm

Thank you Mikeswill, for having some common sense. Also, Mouse, why is it necessary to go on a spree of wanting to repeal 5 different resolutions?

by **Linux and the X** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:13 pm

PrussianEmpire wrote:Thank you Mikeswill, for having some common sense. Also, Mouse, why is it necessary to go on a spree of wanting to repeal 5 different resolutions?

Only two resolutions are being repealed, and it is because they are flawed.

by **Sciongrad** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:23 pm

Mikeswill wrote:Once again members of the World Assembly are seeking to repeal legislation that was supported by the majority of votes (68% - 32%) based upon a narrow interpretation of one portion of the legislation rather than a flaw relative to the whole body of law. It proves that it is very easy to convince Nations to vote against with a “For” vote through rhetoric.

Mikeswill voted for the initial legislation and does not find the repeal compelling a change in position. As such, Mikeswill voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"".

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region

Your justification for opposing the repeal is that the original passed? :blink:

And I would hardly consider the interpretation expressed in the repeal as "narrow."

PrussianEmpire wrote:Thank you Mikeswill, for having some common sense. Also, Mouse, why is it necessary to go on a spree of wanting to repeal 5 different resolutions?

Five? Your Excellency, there are currently two repeals put forth by his Excellency of Mousebumples regarding this topic (this one, and the repeal of Stem Cells Greater Health), not five...

by **Damanucus** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:28 pm

Mikeswill wrote:Once again members of the World Assembly are seeking to repeal legislation that was supported by the majority of votes (68% - 32%) based upon a narrow interpretation of one portion of the legislation rather than a flaw relative to the whole body of law. It proves that it is very easy to convince Nations to vote against with a “For” vote through rhetoric.

Mikeswill voted for the initial legislation and does not find the repeal compelling a change in position. As such, Mikeswill voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"".

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region

So I put this to you, esteemed Ambassador...Whateveryournameis. Would you be allowed to implant an HIV-positive organs into an HIV-positive patient under the current resolution?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

by **Mousebumples** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:07 pm

Mikeswill wrote:Once again members of the World Assembly are seeking to repeal legislation that was supported by the majority of votes (68% - 32%) based upon a narrow interpretation of one portion of the legislation rather than a flaw relative to the whole body of law. It proves that it is very easy to convince Nations to vote against with a “For” vote through rhetoric.

Mikeswill voted for the initial legislation and does not find the repeal compelling a change in position. As such, Mikeswill voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"".

Ah, so I see that with your logic, the repeal function should never be used. You're an antiquity nation so you've been around since before the repeal feature was introduced. Would it be safe to conclude then - given the above logic - that no UN resolutions should ever have been repealed either?

UNR#1 - Fight the Axis of Evil - passed with 67% of the vote
UNR#2 - Scientific Freedom - passed with 70% of the vote
UNR#3 - Education for All - passed with 81% of the vote
UNR#5 - DVD Region Removal - passed with 84% of the vote

These resolutions - while well-intentioned - had serious flaws that needed to be rectified. Therefore, despite their overwhelming initial support, they were later repealed.

The same is true with this resolution. It is well-intentioned, but due to its many shortcomings, it needs to be repealed. Not to worry, I have more effective replacements just about ready to submit in the next week or two.

PrussianEmpire wrote:Thank you Mikeswill, for having some common sense. Also, Mouse, why is it necessary to go on a spree of wanting to repeal 5 different resolutions?

I think you may be confused. My Repeal & Replace effort involves 5 drafts - only 2 of which are repeals, as the other 3 are the replacements. Of course, if you apply this same sort of half-reading technique to the resolution, I guess I can understand why you don't want to see it repealed. Just pretend that the problem areas don't exist, and magic! Great piece of legislation we've got here, right? [/sarcasm]

Alqania wrote:"The Queendom has voted in favour of this repeal", Lord Raekevik announced, "but I would like to point one thing out with regards to HIV-positive donors and HIV-positive recipients. There may be cause for national governments to keep restrictions on the donation of tissue between HIV-positive people. This is because a person may be infected with more than one strain of HIV, which is often called 'dual HIV infection' or 'multiple HIV infection'. There are studies indicating that dual or multiple infection accelerates progression to AIDS and if so then it would seem to potentially be in the interest of HIV-positive recipients to receive HIV-negative tissue. But, the tricky thing here is that there are also studies to the contrary, even going so far as indicating that dually HIV infected people live longer lives than those infected with only one strain of the virus. So the situation seems a bit unclear as it is and I imagine that future national regulations on this matter will be dependent on the findings of further research in this area."

I tend to agree with the ... cloudiness of that matter. However, given the conflicting findings, I feel that this is a decision that is best made by patients (with help from their doctors), after looking at the likelihood of receiving an HIV-negative transplant. If a nation has plenty of organs available, there's no reason to even broach the difficult decision of HIV-positive organ or no organ at all.

Your support is much appreciated.

by **Basoden (Ancient)** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:05 pm

A number of the arguments laid out in affirmation and negation of the resolution at hand seemed to be focused on specific case medical examples which, while relevant, only make up a fraction of the real argument to be debated. At its core the focus of the General Assembly should be to enact resolutions which would benefit the greater good of the constituents of member nations and, when necessary, repeal resolutions which have proven themselves to be failed legislation, fundamentally flawed, or no longer necessary for the function of our delegate nations. Much of the opposition to this resolution seems to be focused on what constitutes a disease, that the repeal of the act would somehow diminish the quality of organ and blood donations, that patients would be denied medical care because of the repeal of the act, and that the repeal lacks merit based either on other available medical treatments or that it's focus is too narrow compared to the broader scope of the parent act. Conversely affirmative arguments are focused on debating these points, a natural reaction but detracting from more valid points on whether or not the act should be repealed.

While well-intentioned GAR#175 makes a fatal flaw of forbidding all forms of donation and transplant of blood and organs from a donor with unspecified infections or diseases without regard to a patient's personal choice to receive such a transplant. It provides no scope for what current diseases would fall under the umbrella of disqualifying a potential donor nor does it provide guidelines for which donors with as-yet-to-be-recognized infections and diseases should be qualified as to determine eligibility for donation. This is, in my opinion, a sweeping and misguided judgement that could conflict with more learned medical opinion.

The only argument I could possibly offer on the topic would be that the primary goal of the medical community would be to do no harm in the treatment of a patient. Would the transplant of an infected organ or transfusion of infected blood be detrimental to the health of the patient? Would it be against the spirit of treatment to potentially lessen a patient's quality of life in exchange for the possibility of extending it? From a strict standpoint of considering an infected transplant or transfusion to be causing harm to a patient, regardless of their possessing the same ailment, I still do not believe that this should be decided outside of a patient's own interest to follow such a course of action. Where a potentially life-saving option exists where the only negative drawback affects the patient at their choice, no restriction should be made.

Repealing this act does not make illegal the process of transplanting organs or transfusing blood, and it is to be followed by new legislation to address the issues presented. After careful consideration it is the opinion of this delegate that the repeal is necessary and casts his vote In Favor of the resolution.

Miguel Rodriguez
Delegate for The Incorporated States of Basoden

by **Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:22 am

Congratulations to Ambassador Eberhart on the successful repeal!

by **Selsada** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:11 am

The United Socialist States of Selsada is glad that this politically intrusive resolution has been repealled.
The Federal Authority is now redacting its own laws regarding the matters of this former resolution, without any diktat.

by **Basoden (Ancient)** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:58 pm

The Incorporated States of Basoden are pleased that the repeal of this act has passed but we must not waste time in replacing the act with a well-written resolution. We anxiously await the proposal from Ambassador Eberhart to fill the void left behind following this repeal.

Miguel Rodriguez
Delegate for The Incorporated States of Basoden

by **Mousebumples** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:07 pm

Basoden wrote:The Incorporated States of Basoden are pleased that the repeal of this act has passed but we must not waste time in replacing the act with a well-written resolution. We anxiously await the proposal from Ambassador Eberhart to fill the void left behind following this repeal.

Well, after the current At Vote finishes (here's hoping that it passes), I'm planning to submit 3-4 complementary replacements. Provided there are no major hiccups that arise during drafting, they should be submitted within 1-2 weeks.

Thanks again for your support!

by **Euronesia** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:34 pm

Euronesia congratulates the proponent of the repealing of "Organ & Blood Donations Act" for its passage.

by **Mousebumples** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:41 am

Euronesia wrote:Euronesia congratulates the proponent of the repealing of "Organ & Blood Donations Act" for its passage.

We thank the ambassador of Euronesia for their congratulations. However, I'm not about ready to rest yet. I've still got another repeal to pass, and then multiple replacements to get on the books ASAP.

Thanks again!

[PASSED] Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"

Who is online