AT VOTE: Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act" [Complete] [Complete]

Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act":

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

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

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

Also noting that postmortem donation of hearts is nearly impossible,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hereby repeals "Organ and Blood Donation Act".

Click to expand...

The Dourian Embassy:

Here's the original telegram minus the link: Hey there. About six months ago I attempted a repeal of a flawed resolution called "Organ and Blood Donations Act". I felt then, as I do now that the resolution would cost lives rather than save them. This resolution will cause the quality of care to go down for so many people in our nations. I think the text of the repeal speaks for itself, but let me go over the two main points.

First it requires "informed consent" or death before any transplant can take place. It makes no allowance for the brain death of the patient, the understood will of the patient, or the will of next of kin. This is flawed because all organ donations will be diminished. Organs taken from brain dead patients are more viable and more can survive outside the body for longer periods of time. The heart is most problematic since it is very nearly impossible to transplant one from a dead patient to a live one.

Second, it requires compatibility testing to take place before any blood transfusion. This means that in an emergency situation, when universal donor blood is readily available the medical staff must still wait for compatibility testing before saving lives. This is anathema to both their and the original resolutions intent, which was to save lives.

A replacement resolution should be drafted as soon as possible, and I will be working on that as will at least one other nation I've been in contact with whose leader has actual medical experience. That said, this resolution costs lives, and it cannot remain on the books any longer. I'd appreciate your approval and support. Thank you.

I'd like to add that a set of replacements are being worked on by Mousebumples, and links to those drafts are in the WA forums.

Click to expand...

CD TG Puppet:

Hello,

I am sending you this telegram because I believe that you should withdraw your approval from the General Assembly proposal Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act."

The repeal proposal is based on a number of misconceptions about the Organ and Blood Donations Act.

Unlike the repeal proposal says, consent can be obtained from the relatives of patients.

Unlike the repeal proposal says, organs can be removed from brain dead patients without their consent.

Unlike the repeal proposal says, emergency blood transfusions can be given without testing being done beforehand.

For more details, you can read this: nation=cd_tg_puppet/detail=factbook/id=main

The Organ and Blood Donations Act, which originally passed with 68 percent support, is an important piece of legislation that ensures the health and safety of patients and the availability of healthy organs for transplantations and blood for transfusions.

The player who is making this current repeal attempt has attempted to repeal this resolution in the past on grounds of opposing sensible blood testing and the belief that it is acceptable to use diseased organs for transplants. When he made his last attempt, his proposal failed 70 percent to 30 percent.

Do not let him succeed this time. Stand in favor of blood testing and safe organ transplants.

Please withdraw your approval from the repeal proposal, and vote against it if it reaches the floor for a vote.

REPEAL PROPOSAL: page=UN_view_proposal/id=the_dourian_embassy_1343940208

Thank you for your time,

Christian Democrats

P.S. If you have any questions, please reply to this telegram.

Here is a copy of the Organ and Blood Donations Act, which needs to be maintained:

page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=174

Click to expand...

Medical Donation Rights:

Description:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

BELIEVES that all individuals should be accorded specific rights with regards to medical procedures and, specifically, when dealing with the harvesting and transplantation of biomedical tissues.

SPECIFIES that “biomedical tissues” shall include, at minimum, the following:

1. Blood and blood products, such as platelets and plasma.
2. Organs, such as the kidneys, liver, and heart.
3. Stem cells, such as bone marrow tissue, cord blood cells, embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells.

INSISTS that prospective donors and recipients of biomedical tissues shall not be discriminated against without a valid medical rationale, such as blood and tissue typing or the presence of a dangerous contagion.

MANDATES that all prospective donors and recipients agree to the procedure(s) with uncoerced, informed consent prior to any harvesting or transplantation.

PERMITS legal guardians to provide uncoerced, informed consent on behalf of a donor or recipient in the event of any of the following:

1. The individual in question is under the age of majority
2. The individual in question is otherwise unable to understand the information and/or procedure.

CLARIFIES that an individual’s next-of-kin may act as their legal guardian in the event that the individual in question has been medically classified by one or more qualified medical professionals as being irreversibly “brain dead.”

ALLOWS for the following:

1. Triage of prospective recipients based on:
   • Medical need.
   • Geographic location if the biomedical tissue in question may decrease in quality during the transport process.
2. Delay in transplantation due to a co-existing medical condition, which may place the transplanted biomedical tissues at risk of rejection or infection. If such a medical condition exists, all reasonable attempts shall be made at treatment so as to allow the transplant to occur.
3. Passage of national laws regarding the payment and/or reimbursement for lost wages to donors of biomedical tissues.

Click to expand...

The Dourian Embassy:

I posted a rather lengthy reply to the counter-TG on the WA forums, but I'll send you a abridged version for you to post with the rest of the information.

Christian Democrats wrote:"Unlike the repeal proposal says, consent can be obtained from the relatives of patients."

No it can't. Informed Consent can only be acquired from the person in question. Your resolution says this:

"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;"

Informed consent can in this case only be acquired from the patient herself. You attempted to give yourself an out with the unless blah blah blah, but there isn't a resolution that meets the standards we need for this. In almost every reasonable jurisdiction, informed consent is supplemented with the will of next of kin, or barring that a legal guardian. Your resolution does not allow for that exception. It includes only one way that consent can be given.

Christian Democrats wrote:"Unlike the repeal proposal says, organs can be removed from brain dead patients without their consent."

Again, no, organs cannot be removed from brain dead patients. The same clause from above is the same problem. In this case, it's the insertion of the words "live patients". Brain death is not death. Death is the permanent cessation of all biological function. Not just brain activity, all biological function.

Christian Democrats wrote:"Unlike the repeal proposal says, emergency blood transfusions can be given without testing being done beforehand."

This is a reversal for you(not necessarily a vice mind you). I'd say right now that if you honestly believe that's what it does and did from the start, then why in gods name did you include the line? I think you're fibbing a bit. You recognize that the compatibility testing is a fatal flaw, and are trying to loophole your way out of it. Thing is, that's not a proper loophole.

Christian Democrats wrote: "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 testing is to prevent negative transfusion reactions. Key word there, and the one that makes your points null? Prevent. As in stop from happening. Stop from occurring. The testing is in order to keep any negative transfusion reactions from happening, which only works if you wait for the results. There is only one way that line can be read, and it's not the way you're trying to spin it. If they just tested and ignored the results, as you seem to think they would, they wouldn't prevent anything. The line as written says that compatibility testing must be done(which can take upwards of 30-45 minutes when everything is taken into account) before any transfusions may occur.

This is the key sticking point, even if you convinced me that the rest of my arguments were completely invalid, you'd still be wrong on this one. Universal Donor Blood carries such a low risk of complication(but still a non-zero chance; so it'd still have to be tested) that it should be a viable option when everything else is exhausted, and the patient is bleeding to death.

Click to expand...

Informational Review by the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs::

This is an informational review of the GA Resolution-At-Vote, "Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"" published by The North Pacific's Ministry of World Assembly Affairs for your convenience and consideration.

"Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act"" makes two basic arguments: (i) the original resolution does not allow the donation of organs from brain-dead but not technically dead individuals because GA#175 requires "informed consent" from the donor; (ii) compatibility tests for all blood transfusions is unnecessary for Universal Donor blood provisions -- thus, GA#175 is hazardously risking peoples' lives in emergency circumstances if they need a blood transfusion promptly.

The Ministry has reviewed both the original author and the repeal author's arguments back and forth and has found both of them grab at straws where they are untrue -- for one thing, the original author seemed to believe that this repeal wanted to permit "diseased" organs from brain-dead donors which is an obvious falsehood: simply put brain-dead donors can be an excellent source for organ donation and harvesting, much better than the post-mortem resources which the original resolution permits.

Nonetheless, the Ministry developed many arguments to oppose this repeal which happen to also have been shared by the original author, Christian Democrats. The main gist of the defense for the original resolution is that this repeal improperly assumes that the text of the resolution is more rigid that it actually is -- a common problem among repeal authors who rarely give the benefit of doubt to the resolution text, but instead to their own repeal initiatives.

First and most noticeably, "informed consent" from brain-dead or live patients can be argued to be provided via a donor system, where signing a contract years in advance of any accident or unfortunate circumstance can be referred to as "informed consent" for organ donation. These donor systems are absolutely not uncommon in real nations nor illegal under this resolution since it is vague enough not to mention a time-frame in which informed consent needs to be given. Likewise, something both the Ministry and the original author noted was that "who" needs to provide the informed consent is not specified -- it is likely, every member-nation will have their own rules of succession in regards to consent (i.e., next-of-kin). Furthermore, the original author notes that the "informed clause" permits WA resolutions to override the "informed consent" test anyways, although we disagree with the original author by saying that the Patient's Rights Act (GA#29) gives parents of brain-dead offspring the right to consent to live organ donation or harvesting, since GA#29's purview extends only to treatment of the patients and access to health information.

Second, The Ministry disagrees with the original author on most of his defenses of his resolution in regards to compatibility: although the author argued the "in order" in clause five specified that the compatibility tests only needed to be done if there is a risk of non-compatibility, it seems rather obvious to The Ministry that if the clause requires "compatibility testing be done regarding all blood donations and transfusions" that would mean "ALL". Nonetheless, it should be noted that modern medicine suggests even a universal blood donation should be tested for compatibility because there are reports of rare situations where transfusion reactions can occur from universal blood donations. Furthermore, the original author notes that there is no time-frame placed on the compatibility tests, thus the tests could be done after a patient receives a donation -- the Ministry also notes that the compatibility tests are not defined, national medical policies may allow for quicker, emergency performances for compatibility tests that could be as simple as checking to ensure that the package has been labeled correct as a universal blood type.

The North Pacific has always been fairly critical of repeals and the Ministry believes the weakness of this repeal stems from grabbing at straws for reasons to repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act".

The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has (1) thus recommended that the delegate vote "AGAINST" Repeal "Organ and Blood Donations Act", and (2) calls upon all member-states in The North Pacific (that's you!) to carefully consider the viewpoints expressed in this informational statement. Thank you.

Yours,
Unibot
Minister of World Assembly Affairs in The North Pacific.

Click to expand...