[GA - PASSED] Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Crowheim | Onsite Topic​

Lauding previous efforts by the World Assembly to both increase the efficiency of the blood donation process and increase the rights of minorities,

Recognizing that some restrictions exist upon certain minority groups, those of which are often not based in peer-reviewed science, and that beyond the obvious bigotry, they have a negative impact on the amount of blood that is able to be donated, meaning less people can receive the medical treatment that they may need, and that scientific developments have largely mitigated any risk that these restrictions may have once been based upon,

The General Assembly hereby enacts the following:

No restrictions may be placed upon the ability of a person to voluntarily donate blood based solely upon their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other reductive or arbitrary characteristic.

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donations, the standards of safety must be applied equally to all donors.

A person may be prohibited from donating blood if there are notable risks to the donor's health involved in the process of blood donation or their blood would pose a health risk to the recipient.

If a prospective blood donor knows or suspects that they are a carrier for a blood-borne illness they can be prohibited from donating blood, and it shall be considered a criminal offense to knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood.

Existing scientific committees created by this body shall be utilized to share information related to blood-borne illnesses and blood donation across member states, as to mitigate any risk of contaminated blood.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD]Against[/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD]Present[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]4[/TD][TD]9[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]7[/TD][/TR]


"Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act" has passed 11,380 (72.4%) to 4,344 (27.6%).
 
Last edited:
IFV

Overview
This proposal seeks to remove discriminatory practices in eligibility for blood donation. To this end, this proposal then removes those restrictions while allowing for safety protocols to be put in place to prevent the spread of disease before also stating a framework for sharing information on blood donation and its potential risks.

Recommendation
While certainly removing arbitrary barriers to blood donation is a noble goal, this proposal misses the mark in several ways. First, it does not recognize that screening practices exist post-blood donation which renders moot the need for penalties for those who donate blood while having, or not knowing they have, a blood-borne illness. Secondly, this proposal works against itself-stating an ambiguous case for uniform, universal safety standards instead of recognizing the need for different standards for different donors. For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, “Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act”.
 
Last edited:
I am taking issue with the use of "reductive or arbitary characteristic" in Clause 1, though I would seek to hear the author's opinion on the forum before deciding my vote.

For the second clause, I am dissapointed that the author didn't use the opportunity to enact regulations that would help in ensuring safety of the blood donation process, especially since the title is "Blood Donation Safety and Equality Act"

The fourth clause is okay, but I think a better wording could help in improving the clarity. Right now, it is particularly mouthful and difficult to understand.

Currently PRESENT, for vote counting purposes.
 
Present.

In my ignorance, I must admit that I have never heard of the problem that minorities face when it comes to blood donation. With that said however, the above proposal only outlines some basic clauses when it comes to dealing with the Safety and Equality aspect that the proposal is trying bring about. Clause 1 has a term labelled arbitrary characteristic, and it does not really explain what that term covers hence the reason for me abstaining.
 
Wouldn't clause 3 allow a corrupt/racist organization to turn away specific non-O- donors on the grounds that their blood would pose a health risk to a specific O- recipient?

Edit: This is doable even with clause 2, since the wording of clause 3 would allow organizations to "match" donors with specific priority recipients (or use some other nonsense along those lines, given that clause 3 says "the recipient").

Edit 2: A government bans travelers coming from a foreign country with an outbreak of bloodborne "illness" (the correct term is disease- illness refers to symptoms, which is another problem, given clinically latent HIV, for example, is asymptomatic and would therefore not count as a bloodborne illness for the purposes of this proposal) from donating blood for a certain period of time after arrival. How does that fit under clause 2? If clause 2 means that all donors must be banned from donating for that period regardless of travel, that's ridiculous. If clause 2 means that the restriction applies to all donors only if they've traveled, then what's to stop an organization from finding some way to discriminate so long as the discriminatory condition's looked for in all donors?

Edit 3: There's also nothing to stop a corrupt/racist organization from discarding donated blood once it's been donated. This is like mandating that a hospital not discriminate in patient admission without also mandating that the hospital not discriminate in standard of care given.

Against.
 
Last edited:
Cretox State:
Wouldn't clause 3 allow a corrupt/racist organization to turn away specific non-O- donors on the grounds that their blood would pose a health risk to a specific O- recipient?

Edit: This is doable even with clause 2, since the wording of clause 3 would allow organizations to "match" donors with specific priority recipients (or use some other nonsense along those lines, given that clause 3 says "the recipient").

Edit 2: A government bans travelers coming from a foreign country with an outbreak of bloodborne "illness" (the correct term is disease- illness refers to symptoms, which is another problem, given clinically latent HIV, for example, is asymptomatic and would therefore not count as a bloodborne illness for the purposes of this proposal) from donating blood for a certain period of time after arrival. How does that fit under clause 2? If clause 2 means that all donors must be banned from donating for that period regardless of travel, that's ridiculous. If clause 2 means that the restriction applies to all donors only if they've traveled, then what's to stop an organization from finding some way to discriminate so long as the discriminatory condition's looked for in all donors?

Edit 3: There's also nothing to stop a corrupt/racist organization from discarding donated blood once it's been donated. This is like mandating that a hospital not discriminate in patient admission without also mandating that the hospital not discriminate in standard of care given.
Click to expand...
Adding to this, I think discriminatory organisations can consider, say "homosexuality" as a "blood-borne disease" and stop it under clause 3, no?
 
This doesn't seem to be a real issue in life. (If it's semen or egg donation actually there are probably bigger issues).

FWIW, in real life I am not actually allowed to donate blood where I live for what I consider to be somewhat borderline "health risk" reasons (Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease), so I am personally interested in seeing how this turns out. It hasn't been an issue for me other than to skip the annual corporate blood bank drive.
 
I do think it's a shame that the proposal doesn't establish any minimal security requirements, as Fregerson said. As of yet, I haven't found any GA resolutions that could ensure the prevention of a contaminated blood scandal across all member nations (but do tell me if you have!) Don't forget that the issue of blood donation safety is one of life and death, and that we must therefore be as careful and specific as we can.

That is why it displeases me to see the proposal go in the right direction without reaching the "heart" of it or ensuring specific policies are universally applied. For example, it is very important to know what minimal safety standards are to be enforce. There can be no space for loopholes when people's lives are at stake!

I am personally in favor of issuing two or three specialized resolutions that dive deeper into each topic, instead of trying to deal with this issue with just one superficial strike. That way, we can make sure that these vital issues are dealt with utterly and completely, saving thousands of lives. Until then, I will personally abstain from voting.

Present!
 
Last edited:
“any other reductive or arbitrary characteristic.”
Seems very vague.
“and it shall be considered a criminal offense to knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood.”
Not a fan of this.

And there’s no safety standards, as mentioned.
Cretox State:
Edit 3: There's also nothing to stop a corrupt/racist organization from discarding donated blood once it's been donated. This is like mandating that a hospital not discriminate in patient admission without also mandating that the hospital not discriminate in standard of care given.
Click to expand...
This too.

Against
 
Two issues I've got with this.

If the safety of the recipients of donated blood is the reason given for a restriction on blood donations, the standards of safety must be applied equally to all donors.
Click to expand...
I'm not buying this argument in particular. Surely there are ways to make something safe, but this would be like saying somebody who is normal and has no issues with blood donation or bleeding should be treated the same as someone who just happens to be clotting deficient poor (naturally, not like a haemophiliac or they have something like an iron deficiency). I don't buy that that is an equitable standard or that it should help.

If a prospective blood donor knows or suspects that they are a carrier for a blood-borne illness they can be prohibited from donating blood, and it shall be considered a criminal offense to knowingly attempt to donate unsafe blood.
Click to expand...
This is why we have screening for blood-borne illnesses and transmittable issues like, say, HIV. While I understand the prohibition, unless a nation is completely negligent, I don't understand why there needs to be a criminal penalty attached for donating.

Against.
 
Present. Never heard of a case in which minorities are not allowed to donate blood (excluding homosexuals)

Against. The WA has turned too cringy and passes all legislations that have the word "equality". (The real reason is not that)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As of 10:08 AM EDT, this proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Presuming it is not withdrawn or marked illegal, it will go up for a vote at Monday's Major Update.
 
Boston Castle:
This is why we have screening for blood-borne illnesses and transmittable issues like, say, HIV. While I understand the prohibition, unless a nation is completely negligent, I don't understand why there needs to be a criminal penalty attached for donating.
Click to expand...
HIV isn't an illness: it's a disease. Diseases wouldn't even be caught by this clause unless they're accompanied by symptoms.
 
If the proposal at least mandated that all blood collected has to be tested for disease regardless of who is giving then it may be passable. I know equality is a popular topic for the GA, but this is a medical subject we are discussing and so there has to at least be safeguards for the sake of medical wellbeing.

Against
 
Stance TBD at the moment. I think we're going with the Against IFV, but not entirely sure.

Edit: unless you're unsubscribed, you just got the Against IFV, so that solves that!
 
Last edited:
simone_republic:
This doesn't seem to be a real issue in life. (If it's semen or egg donation actually there are probably bigger issues).

FWIW, in real life I am not actually allowed to donate blood where I live for what I consider to be somewhat borderline "health risk" reasons (Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease), so I am personally interested in seeing how this turns out. It hasn't been an issue for me other than to skip the annual corporate blood bank drive.
Click to expand...
Present. This is notwithstanding that I personally cannot donate blood due to my enjoyment of high quality, nutritious British beef. I don't consider it a loss to me personally not to donate blood.
 
Cretox State:
HIV isn't an illness: it's a disease. Diseases wouldn't even be caught by this clause unless they're accompanied by symptoms.
Click to expand...
HIV is (almost always) caught by tests in any case in most developed countries. There were obviously many unfortunate incidents related to HIV and blood donation from awhile ago.
 
simone_republic:
Present. This is notwithstanding that I personally cannot donate blood due to my enjoyment of high quality, nutritious British beef. I don't consider it a loss to me personally not to donate blood.
Click to expand...
Forgot the Mad Cow Disease scare existed....or that it still exists.
 
simone_republic:
This doesn't seem to be a real issue in life. (If it's semen or egg donation actually there are probably bigger issues).

FWIW, in real life I am not actually allowed to donate blood where I live for what I consider to be somewhat borderline "health risk" reasons (Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease), so I am personally interested in seeing how this turns out. It hasn't been an issue for me other than to skip the annual corporate blood bank drive.
Click to expand...

I know the recomendation has already gone out but I wanted to address this. Where I live, I'm not allowed to donate blood because I'm gay (and not abstinent). My country is far from alone in this. It feels very glib of you to just declare that it isn't a real issue in life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top