This House Would prohibit the emigration of medical personnel to developed countries

In terms of practicality and safety sake of the aforementioned medical personnel, the resolution before the house must stand. However, before I get into some constructive I'd first like to refute what the Opposition as presented. The main point that the Opposition was trying to prove was that there is a need for aid in developing countries, and having medical personnel emigrate to those countries is the best way to supply this aid. Firstly, I'd just like to point out that there was no substantial evidence, statistics, or percentages that proved this to be true. However, the main point here is that emigration is not necessary, as I will get into in my speech. On Side Government, we see that there are better, more safe ways to offer aid to developing countries that will be more beneficial to those countries, and our own country, than having medical personnel emigrate to developing countries. Now, let's get into some constructive. The main point that must be proved is the emigration is not practical, nor is it necessary. Firstly, the definition of emigration is leaving a country to live or settle permanently in another. On Side Government, we completely recognize that aid is a necessity in many developing nations; however, there is no reason why volunteers should live permanently in a country that is ridden with crime, poverty, and contagious and fatal illnesses. Sending volunteers to developing countries is necessary in certain cases. However, we must recognize that there is a difference between migration and emigration, and we can still send aid without having them residing permanently in a dangerous country. For example, Doctors Without Borders is a humanitarian and medical aid organization. Their average time for a mission is around 9-12 months. This may seem like a highly unsubstantial amount of time, in which in any amount of success would be impossible to achieved. However, Doctors Without Borders alone has recovered 1,599 Ebola cases. This amazing accomplishment was achieved within a short, nine month time frame. So clearly, I've shown that emigration to developing countries is not necessary when offering medical aid. However, does it deserve to be prohibited? The answer is yes, because of the hazards it poses for those emigrating. Ebola is a highly contagious disease which we all know about, and we have seen that in a case a simple as the Has-Mat suit mishap can cause a plethora of sick humans and human deaths. This was caused by a lack of information; some may even say that this mishap could have been a fluke. However, we are severely undereducated because we have no way of knowing what in store for us in our future. Our future is but a multitude of What Ifs, Could Happens, and Maybes. There could be a disease that is as deadly as Cancer, yet it is as contagious as the common cold. But the scary thing is, the future doesn't have to be fifty years from now, it can be tomorrow. We don't know what is going on, on the other side of the world, we don't know about all the different diseases, and we definitely don't about the every single danger that exists. Without knowledge, we cannot prepare people for what's lurking around the corner, simply because we don't know what is lurking around the corner. Sending volunteers to emigrate to another country is a stressful, long process, and dangers and health complications only make matter worse. There are other, and arguably more effect ways that this aid can be offered, which I will go into next round that don't pose any threats. For these reasons, it is obvious that emigration of medical personnel to developing countries, surely, should be prohibited. Work Cited: "MSF USA | Medical Aid Where It Is Needed Most. Independent. Neutral. Impartial." MSF USA. Web. 17 Dec. 2014. <http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org...;.