Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

[Alex]

As some of you may know, I do Lincoln Douglas Debate as part of my school's debate team. This first month or so (starts in November I think) the topic is:

 

 

 

Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

 

It is a moral argument that I have to make, and I have to argue both sides. I have a lot of time before I write up my actual case, but I thought I'd toss it out here into this subforum to see what your thoughts are (either way) on the topic.

[Jerry LeRow]

Pro:

--> they're dead, they don't need it anymore

--> could avoid the death of other people who, without those donations, would have to wait for months / years

 

Con:

--> there are property rights for everything, car, land, house, money, ..., and once you die they're not given to other people either. Organs should also be con

--> "legal theft"

--> donations are always voluntary

--> organs might end up in bodies of people the donor person doesn't even like

--> people could start to kill in order to get organs... guess who will be killed. not the millionaire up on the hill, that's for sure

--> might halt/abort all current efforts to make people survive without new organs. medicine will fail to look for alternatives and just rely on dead people

--> this might also be the end for stem cell research, which was basically invented to be independent of potential donors and use stem cells to "repair" the body... would mean billions of $ wasted

[Ayayay]

To add another con:

 

 It's my [dead] body, and if I want to continue being an @#$hole in the afterlife then so be it. You ain't taking !@#$ from my corpse.

Edited September 26, 2014 by underlordgc

[Adama]

A just society would harvest everyone's organs and distribute them equally.

[Sailor Jerry]

Another con.......in some religions, the body must remain whole when buried or cremated in order for the soul to go on to the afterlife. Me personally though, I think when you have breathed your last breath, and your heart has pumped its last beat.......that is when your soul leaves your body.......which in my mind is when you hear the stories of near death, out of body experiences only to be brought back through extreme medical intervention. So for me, once the soul departs the body, all that is left is an empty vessel......a husk if you will, that is good for nothing else other than compost.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Coach

[SoS]

Con. That stuff is worth a lot of money. Last time I checked they sell a pint of blood for $900. Enjoy the cookie and OJ they give you for it.

 

I'm all for donating my stuff. I simply demand that the people I donate it to aren't charged outlandish prices for it. If they insist on charging the recipient $900 for my blood then I must insist on receiving $500 for my donation.

 

I have no pros for forcibly harvesting a body. Well, for Sheepy's benefit - their body, and no other possessions belong to the deceased after death. Unless the use of the organs is explicitly willed, they are open to probate.

[Alex]

Interesting, there is a lot of arguments for the negative side, which I don't find fault in. I think to make an affirmative case, you really have to interpret the resolution a little differently, "In a just society": In this presumed Utopia you wouldn't have to worry about the poor getting killed to increase the supply of available organs, people would all consent to the organ donation, etc.

Then again, you could flip that just as easily and say that in a Utopia everyone would willingly donate their organs and society wouldn't need to presume consent.

 

It should make for an interesting and fun debate.

[SoS]

It's not right to pay the poor for their organs. Similarly, it's not right to charge the sick for organs. Utopia wouldn't trade in human organs. Freely givien and freely received, would be another story.

 

So many people do willingly give their bodies, freely. It's a shame that those organs are given freely then sold at ridiculous rates to the people that need them.

 

I thought there was a law against selling organs/tissue.

[Ren]

Con. That stuff is worth a lot of money. Last time I checked they sell a pint of blood for $900. Enjoy the cookie and OJ they give you for it.

 

I'm all for donating my stuff. I simply demand that the people I donate it to aren't charged outlandish prices for it. If they insist on charging the recipient $900 for my blood then I must insist on receiving $500 for my donation.

 

Most of the organizations that have blood drives are nonprofits. The cost covers the administration side, as well as testing for diseases and separating the samples. Someone must cover those cost, so the hospital picks up the tab and passes it on to the the patient's insurance. You could donate directly to the hospital and bypass some of the for-profit brokers, but there will still be a cost incurred. Any profits made go back into the business and not to shareholders.

 

Many countries use an "opt out" system, meaning that it is assumed that someone has consented to having their organs taken after death, unless they explicitly took the steps to opt out. This leads to higher donation rates, as many people never bother with jumping through the hoops required to withdraw consent. As long as it is made very clear to the public that this is the case, I see no reason why this system can't be implemented in the US. The donor's family could block the donation, but there would still be a surge in donors.

[Hereno]

The only argument against it that makes sense to me is the religious one. The easy solution to that is to say "okay, if we can't have your organs, I hope you don't need any of ours". Then they all die from liver/kidney/heart failure, the good people get the organs, and natural selection happens.

[Shellhound]

Personally I think the best solution is to do it where instead of having it where you opt-in to have your organs donated post-mortem that you have to opt out if you don't want it. I believe most people truly don't care one way or another but don't opt in simply because they don't care, but if they were already in it, unless they were against it for certain religious purposes, they most likely wouldn't opt out of the program. I forget which country does this but the success rate is amazing, something like a high 90% of the people donate their organs.

[SoS]

The only argument against it that makes sense to me is the religious one. The easy solution to that is to say "okay, if we can't have your organs, I hope you don't need any of ours". Then they all die from liver/kidney/heart failure, the good people get the organs, and natural selection happens.

Natural selection is don't get organ failure in the first place. Or have plenty of money to afford transplantation. Depending on altruism, in this society, will lead your seed to extinction. Especially where the medical industry is involved.

 

Opting out would be the best option. Even with my objections, I wouldn't bother. Although, I may make some advanced deals to see my wishes honored. Have my body either sold or my organs stored on the mantle in formaldehyde, Egyptian style. The grandkids would be disturbed by my genatilia in a jar, but they would at least have that to remember me by.

[Alex]

Most of the organizations that have blood drives are nonprofits. The cost covers the administration side, as well as testing for diseases and separating the samples. Someone must cover those cost, so the hospital picks up the tab and passes it on to the the patient's insurance. You could donate directly to the hospital and bypass some of the for-profit brokers, but there will still be a cost incurred. Any profits made go back into the business and not to shareholders.

 

Many countries use an "opt out" system, meaning that it is assumed that someone has consented to having their organs taken after death, unless they explicitly took the steps to opt out. This leads to higher donation rates, as many people never bother with jumping through the hoops required to withdraw consent. As long as it is made very clear to the public that this is the case, I see no reason why this system can't be implemented in the US. The donor's family could block the donation, but there would still be a surge in donors.

 

Wow, this hadn't even crossed my mind. This is the key to winning this topic as the affirmative, really. Presuming consent doesn't mean they're taking everyone's organs, it just means we ought to default to "let's take their organs" instead of "let's not take their organs". 

[Hereno]

Natural selection is don't get organ failure in the first place. Or have plenty of money to afford transplantation. Depending on altruism, in this society, will lead your seed to extinction. Especially where the medical industry is involved.

 

Opting out would be the best option. Even with my objections, I wouldn't bother. Although, I may make some advanced deals to see my wishes honored. Have my body either sold or my organs stored on the mantle in formaldehyde, Egyptian style. The grandkids would be disturbed by my genatilia in a jar, but they would at least have that to remember me by.

Natural selection is the process whereby the trait/genetic makeup of a population is changed based on the ability of those factors to impede or promote reproduction. In this case, genetic traits which cause a person to be more likely to opt out of organ donation would cause these people to be more likely to die; hopefully before reproductive age.

 

That said, it wasn't a serious argument. I'm not the kind of person to sit back and let someone die, no matter how stupid they are.

[Greatnate]

Personally I think the best solution is to do it where instead of having it where you opt-in to have your organs donated post-mortem that you have to opt out if you don't want it. I believe most people truly don't care one way or another but don't opt in simply because they don't care, but if they were already in it, unless they were against it for certain religious purposes, they most likely wouldn't opt out of the program. I forget which country does this but the success rate is amazing, something like a high 90% of the people donate their organs.

 

I think that this is probably the best solution. Reinforcement by the idea that you must be a donor in order to receive a donation may or may not improve results. Either way, defaulting to the option more useful to society is clearly the optimal solution.

[Alex]

Here is my case that I've written so far, to be honest I only spent an hour or so on it and I'll likely go back and change things, as well as I still have to write my negative case, but give me some critique.

 

 

Affirmative

In today’s debate, Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased, I will be arguing for the affirmative side. There are over 123,000 people waiting for organs donors in our country alone. 18 people die every day waiting for the organs they need to survive. You might even know someone who received a life-saving organ transplant, or whose life was unfortunately lost due to the lack of a donor.

Because I value human life, I must stand firmly in favor our topic for today’s debate.

For the purpose of today’s debate, I have five terms I’d like to define.

1.       Just society is defined as “a society in which morality is placed above all else”

2.       Presume consent is defined as “to take the default position that one’s permission is given”

3.       Organ procurement is defined as “Removal or retrieval of organs for transplantation”

My value premise for today’s debate is human life.

Human life is the crux of today’s debate. By saving human life we can create a more moral society in which suffering through loss of human life is minimized. All people are affected by organ failure and can have a need for a transplant. By increasing the amount of available organs for transplantation we can save lives, and those people saved could be a friend or family member. Would you want one of your loved ones to die because they couldn’t get an organ transplant in time?

 

That brings me to my criterion, which is health because to ensure and maintain human life we must be able to provide for and ensure people’s health. Health is necessary to my value of human life.

 

 

Contention A: Benefits of Organ Procurement

Sub-Point 1: Organs After Death

Once a person is deceased, their organs will stop functioning and die with the person if they are not procured. By not procuring the organs for use in another person, they will simply die and be of no use to anyone. The deceased don’t need their organs, and if we can save a life with those same organs it only makes sense to presume consent for their procurement.

            Sub-Point 2: Life After Death

There is another important point to be made about organ donation. It is not, necessarily, that the deceased are giving up a part of their bodies to allow another person to live. This situation can be thought of as the person receiving the organ giving up their whole body to allow a part of the deceased organ donator to continue living. Many can find solace in the thought that even after their death their heart or kidney may continue on living.

 

Contention B: Significance of the Problem

            Sub-Point 1: Need for Organ Donors

As I mentioned in the beginning of my case, there are over 123,000 people on the waiting list for an organ donation currently. As of this morning, that number sits at exactly 123,822 people. On average every 10 minutes a new patient is added to this waiting list. There is a real demand for life saving organ transplants, and without enough donors people are dying.

            Sub-Point 2: How Deceased Can Help

On average each organ donor can save the lives of 8 people waiting for organ transplants. If we simply presumed consent for organ procurement of the deceased, think of how many lives could be saved. Remember, these people being saved aren’t in some far off land that you’ll never see, these are people that you know and interact with in your communities. Some might even be friends and loved ones.

 

Contention C: How does Presuming Consent Work?

            Sub-Point 1: What does presuming consent mean?

What presuming consent means in society, is that if at no point in your life did you specify whether you wanted to be an organ donor or not, you society defaults to the stance that society has permission to donate your organs when you die. Presuming consent does not mean that society will take your organs no matter what. If you wished to not have your organs donated for religious or other reasons, you would have the option to declare that before you were deceased.

            Sub-Point 2: Opt-out vs. Opt-in

Right now in our society we have an opt-in stance on organ donation. If you want to be an organ donor, you have to specify that when you get your driver’s license. In a just society where consent was presumed, you would instead simply have to opt-out. By that I mean, you would simply declare that you did not wish to be an organ donor before you died and your organs would not be procured from you. By flipping the default position on organ donation, we could increase the health of thousands of people that might otherwise die without those organs, and solve for my value of human life.

 

 

For all of the reasons stated I must re-affirm that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement, and that my value of human life is the most important value in today’s debate. Only through ensuring health can we maintain human life, the most moral value.

I now open myself up for cross-examination.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Presumptive "opt out" donations seem fair.  Religious folks who have beliefs about their body needing to be whole can opt out.  @ssholes can opt out.  I don't think mandatory donations are fair.  As the second post said, if its mandatory, its not a donation.