WODC: Organ Procurement and Just Societies

IntroductionI thank bsh1 for this debate. We agreed in the comments to pass on Round 5.In this round, I will defend my case from his attacks in the third round.RebuttalsAbout Presumed ConsentP1: JusticeThe rebuttals of Pro is (1) that the right of choice is given, just like in the Opt in system (2) that the rights of the dead should not outweigh the rights of the living.(1) I never claimed that they didn't have the right to choose, but the fact that they are assuming the wishes of the people opens the possibility of taking the organs of a person that didn't want to donate, in the same way that the wishes of a person that would like to donate are not followed in a opt in system.My argument was that there should be coherence.(2) The rights of the living are not being affected by the decision of refusing to donate an organ. This is part of the rights and wishes point. The fact that Pro is giving the choice to "refuse to donate" means that this rights and wishes are important.And the fact that you are not obligated to donate means that the rights of people that needs donations are not being affected.P2: Rights and WishesMy argument was not that Pro was not able to provide a solution to fix OOS. My argument is that the solution is not consistent with OOS.And he proved it by providing solutions that don't consider OOS as the default.Pro's solutions consist on a next of kin or just not presuming consent. That shows that the default should be the assumption that the person is not consenting because it would ensure that the rights of that person are not being affected.Then Pro claims that we can presume consent of rational persons because they can consent. Sadly, this is not true just as I explained in P1. This is not consistent with moral truths.We do not presume consent for other medical procedures. Considering that we don't have another example where consent is presumed for an invasive procedure like that, we cannot say that "we can presume consent of rational persons just because they are able to consent".P3: Donation ratesThe argument was that it's not sure that the donations rates were going to increase. This is important because it shows that there are different factors that affect the donation rates.I knew that was a common argument for presumed consent so I wanted to challenge that notion a little bit, specially considering that in Brazil, the donation rates actually got reduces and they were obligated to return to the old system. That with the rebuttals in another round about he framework.Remember that this was in the argument against Presumed consent. I did not mention mandated choice yet.The reason I mention this as an argument is because it complements the arguments for Mandated choice.Arguments for Mandated choiceP1: JusticeHere Pro mentions right of choice again. And again, I never claimed anything about the right of choice. I don't believe that OOS shuts everyone up and presume consent without letting them to choose. The argument was that, just like the OIS, the OOS doesn't ensure the answer of everyone, something that MCS does.The fact that you are ensuring the answer of everyone makes assumptions unnecessary. So one of the problems with the Opt In system, that the Opt out system also share go away. No more assumptions.This is just, specially related to the OOS because you are not assuming something that would affect the rights and wishes of the citizens negatively.There is no risks in MCS.P2: Organ shortagesHere Pro claims that OOS also reduces organ shortfalls, even more than MCS.But how is this possible? If we ask every adult if they consent, and we respect those wishes, then we will have the maximum amount of organ donations while being just and respecting everyone's decision.The fact that Pro is claiming that they might be more donations than MCS is because he knows about the risk of people not stating their wishes and the rights and wishes of these people being affected.And as I explained in other round, the rights of the people start before they explicitly ask for them, so the rights are indeed being affected.Then he claims that under Utilitarian calculus, we should prefer the latter, even if it affects the rights of the people.This is false.The utilitarian calculus should start after we determine the just options a "just society" may choose.We could imagine a system where the government is allowed to conduct a lottery for forcible organ donations. That would be "better" in Pro's analysis because If one person donates that could save several persons' lives.But we can quickly see that it's a horribly decision.It's true that a government should use Utilitarianism to take the decision, but a just society should only weight (using Utilitarianism) the just options, and OOS have those risks that Pro accepts by claiming that there may be more donations in OOS, just like there might be more donations using the lottery."The support for human rights is based on our feelings and deep beliefs that human rights are good. These feelings do not arise in a vacuum. They are acquired because, as history repeatedly shows, violations of human rights have horrible consequences." [1]"Thus, the utilitarian benefits of human rights coincide with the main reasons why the feelings on human rights have developed." [1]Then he claims that the MCS has also non successful examples like the case of Texas. But is Pro's source showing an unsuccessful example? That would be true only if the people that were consenting to donate changed their mind while changing to the presumed consent system (similarly to what happen in Brazil with the OOS). The idea of mandatory consent is to compare it to the Opt in system and see that those that were not able to express their consent for any reason are able now, increasing the donation rates.So in the case of Texas, those 80% of population refusing to donate should also refuse in the OOS to make it just. Pro is claiming that this does not happen and there are more donations in OOS, actually repeating the case of Austria with the 99% of population.If we were talking about the case, the difference between the 99% and 20% means a 79% of population that would have their rights and wishes affected by the OOS which is not just.P3: Best of two worldsThe argument was just to reiterate the balance between the utilitarian benefits and the rights and justice in the MCS. The two worlds in mention are the OIS and OOS. So MCS gets the best of those two systems.The mandated choice system is usually implemented with an ease of choice, giving the citizens more places to give their explicit decision, not only in the drivers license.And as stated before, if one may die before giving their consent, in cases like where the person is too young of is mentally ill, then we should take the default into account and not presume consent of any kind. This was also suggested by Pro in his rebuttal and we can agree that is just.About people refusing to choose, how are they going to refuse to choose. If they were getting their driver's license, they would need to answer to the question to get their license. There is no blank option.In the case no choice was made, we should be consistent and not presume consent.P4: Ease of Choice and AutonomyThis would be similar to the case of Presumed consent with no next of kin. Except that in no case consent would be presumed by the MCS.The only real issue of not being able to know the choice of a person is if they die too young or there is mental illness. In those cases, a next of kin may be necessary.If there is no next of kin, we may presume that there is no consent.Conclusion1. OOS has the risk of affecting people's rights and wishes. This is clear in Pro's arguments about OOS having higher donation rates than MCS. This will only possible if in the cases were the rights and wishes are not taken into account.2. MCS has the benefits of OIS in the rights/justice framework and the benefits of OOS in the Utilitarian framework.There is a balance between justice, which is what this debate is about and utility, which is what the decision of a government should be based on. So the government in a just society would choose MCS.3. If every person that doesn't consent to donate would express that decision, the donation rates of OOS and MCS would be the same.This case is ideal and very unlikely, so MCS is better because it's more reliable.Thanks for the debate. Vote CON.Sources1. http://web.mit.edu...