That we should pay people to donate blood

Before we begin, you will note that my model is not specifically set in the USA. I made a point of including all countries from both the first and third world. For con to win a counter-model he must do more than simply show a superior model for one country. He must show a superior model for the whole planet.Is autonomy requiredMy claims he doesn't care if it can't be quantified. I wonder if my opponent would care to quantify the value of his life. What, not quantifiable? Then by his logic, his life must be worthless - why should we care about anyone? But doesn't that undermine the whole point of a vaccine? If we don't care about others, why vaccinate them?My opponent quantifies lives but not property, which is ironic because life is property - your body is property of you, as I proved last round. When government steals that property (your blood), then that's stealing from you. If you can value life, you can value autonomy.I extended this case with moral, philosophical, ethical, historical, legal and pragmatic reasons why doctors, patients and the general public all want autonomy. This is a lot of arguments for my opponent to ignore just because he doesn't care. With that many arguments conceded against me, I think it's pretty clear there is some justification and mandate for autonomy.Is autonomy already infringed uponNotwithstanding the fact that all of my opponents claims about lost autonomy are false, if autonomy were important but missing, then that would be a great argument for bringing autonomy back in those areas since autonomy is so important to protect. For example, last round I cited forced vaccination in India which has led to many more deaths, and is a great reason for removing that policy.There's a big difference between forced vaccination and requiring those who take part in high-risk activities to be vaccinated. That's what the US supreme court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts [2], which has been the ruling that has stood since then (there's also a controversial patriot act provision, but the court is yet to rule on that provision). People for whom homeschool is impossible are unfairly disadvantaged by this, leading to all manner of ethical concerns by doctors and parents alike [1]. In Brazil [3], forced vaccinations created a "vaccine revolt", one of the worst riots in Brazil's history, and one of the catalysts for an even wider series of revolts.Learning about sex and physicality is also very different from being forced to do something. Just because I know how the pill works doesn't mean I have to take it (especially since I'm a male). There's also a huge difference between physical autonomy (sport) and medical autonomy (medicine). While autonomy more generally is good to support, I'm only advocating medical autonomy in this debate.I wouldn't call these policies successful, even within the US. Vaccination rates are more or less exactly the same today in the USA as in New Zealand [4] despite us not imposing such draconian restrictions, and other countries like Jamaica and Equador are thrashing you, also without forced vaccination laws.Does removing autonomy reduce compliance?Removing autonomy has NEVER increased supply of blood. Never ever. Incentives based models like mine have a proven track record. The biggest difference between con's model and mine is that mine actually works. My opponent's whole argument for superiority rests on the assumption that just because the government mandates more blood, more blood will come. I've no shortage of examples to back up my autonomy analysis proving this is not true.In Uganda's police, blood donations ARE handled by the red cross. If con had actually read the article, he would see it was not dirty needles they were afraid of. In Shanghai, my opponent postulates that the number of students (with compulsory donations) must have gone down. I already proved folks in Shanghai WANTED to donate blood, and my opponent is ignoring all my analysis and the evidence from the articles. In fact, enrolments increased in Shanghai over the period [5].The only true thing is that less frequency means he's not being "that bad" with autonomy. But NOT infringing autonomy is still more secure and better.CostEverything my opponent says about cost is an assumption and not true. The cost is minimal, nothing should have to be passed on to providers, and cost is an issue with ANY medical operation, despite the fact not every medical operation is found on the black market. Like I proved earlier, the cost already exists.SafetyOffering money doesn't give people AIDS - that's not where AIDS comes from. AIDS sufferers are less likely to self-select to be a blood donor, which is the basis for the red cross' assertion. Offering them money might entice more AIDS sufferers to give blood. Forced donations, where involuntary donators have all the incentives to lie on their pre-screening questions about AIDS status, are WORSE. However, I already showed, in the very first constructive round, that this is not a problem any more, since screening methods are now sufficiently advanced.As for rare blood types, I already explained how having a money market for blood solves this. Instead mandating extra donations from minority groups is grossly unfair discrimination.ConclusionThis was a strange debate. I started with the burden of proof, but then con pushed the burden on to themselves by running a counter-model and conceeding mine. There's only one issue - did con prove his crazy theory that all people are sheeple - mindless followers of the divine mandate of their governments in all aspects regarding their life, their body, and the treatments it receives? Think of your own life. Do you trust all the governments of the world completely? Would you if they held you at gunpoint and stole your blood?For myself - and probably for most people, given my empirical evidence - the answer is a resounding no. We want and need personal medical autonomy. Any solution that increases incentives without reducing autonomy will be successful - and vice versa. My opponents model will fail.The resolution is affirmed.Sources1 - http://www.historyofvaccines.org...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://www.jstor.org...4 - http://apps.who.int...5 - http://www.oecd.org...