Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Framework:Before continuing there is a lot to clear up here...First of all, as the instigator of the debate, it is my duty to set the rules and provide framework. As the contender, my opponent must comply to the rules that I set forth in the opening round, or it results in an automatic loss. For example, my opponent tries to set the rules in various ways, such as claiming evidence for soft consent are nontopical. I have not mandated this, and my opponent cannot force me to comply to his interpretation of the resolution I have provided. As for his underview, most of the stuff he mentions either doesn't pertain to the debate, or cannot be forced on the instigator. My opponent MUST accept the rules as termed by the instigator or he automatically loses. Let's go to the substance.Intro:Abraham Lincoln was once quoted in saying, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” Presumed consent is a disputable issue. Taking organs from someone should not be something done without that person’s consent. Each individual should have the first and final say in the decision of donating vital organs, and with an opt-out presumed consent plan, this is not the case. Implicating an opt-in system would be an ideal solution. Presumed consent takes away these rights of the first and final decision. Please note:Value Premise: The most important value is liberty.Accepting an opt-out presumed consent system for organ procurement from the deceased is a perfect example of the government stepping across their boundaries and threatening individual citizen liberty. You prefer my value, because, as I will demonstrate, morality is undermined by presumed consent Liberty: Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. [1]Judging Criterion: whichever side promotes egalitarianism should win the debate.Egalitarianism: Having equal rights, regardless of social, economic, or other distinctions such as income, race, or religious or political beliefs.Con. 1: Medical experts are opposed to presumed consent.Medical professionals and doctors do not believe that presumed consent is a good idea.James Childress, Prof. Ethics, U. Virginia:“In 2005, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended that physicians not support a presumed-consent policy unless small, well-designed pilot studies established that it would be effective. The Council believes that unless data from these pilot studies ‘suggest a positive effect on donation, neither presumed consent nor mandated choice for deceased donation should be widely implemented.’ At this point, the Council contends, it is unknown whether implementation of presumed consent (or of mandated choice) ‘would positively or negatively affect the number of organs transplanted.’” [2]The experts’ advice should not be taken lightly. If a professional believes it is a wrong idea, they probably have a good and well-supported reason behind it. It is imperative that we realize the detrimental significance of presumed consent.Con. 2: Presumed consent doesn’t mean more organs will be available.The simple fact of presumed consent and an opt-out system doesn’t mean that more organs will be donated. In fact,Jesse Schold & Dorry Segev, Nature Reviews Nephrology, June 2012“Moreover, numerous examples exist of countries, such as the US, which do not have a presumed consent policy but have significantly higher donor rates than countries with presumed consent, suggesting that other processes or cultural factors may impact donation rates more strongly than policy alone.” [4]If presumed consent doesn’t actually help, there is no reason to force the society into it. Furthermore, minority groups are having their rights taken from them.Con. 3: Presumed consent undermines liberty and egalitarianism.James Childress, Prof. Ethics, U. Virginia:“Another set of ethical concerns about policies of presumed consent focus on justice and fairness in the distribution of societal burdens, including the burden of decision making about the donation of organs from deceased individuals. More specifically, concerns have emerged that “some groups, such as those who do not speak English or cannot read and write, and those with limited or fluctuating mental capacity, have difficulty in expressing a refusal or understanding the system.’” [5]This reveals how presumed consent approaches to organ shortages disadvantage minority groups. These minority groups are inadvertently being governmentally controlled, thus undermining liberty in these presumed consent opt-out systems. Moreover, the liberty and autonomy to choose is undermined with PC.Laura Nicholson:"To remove the element of choice and place it with government and medical professionals appears to be a backward step, bringing questions and mistrust to the public who feel their rights have been revoked." [6]Rebuttals: Values: Morality flows to the neg. because it's immoral to make blatant assumptions about an individuals life, especially when the policy's assumptions don't actually provide anything better than the status quo. This leaves you with the value of liberty which can't be applied to the aff in any way.Maximizing the overall good also flows to the neg. because the overall good entails saving the *most* lives and improving the good of the people. Aff can't fulfill this because organ donation rates don't increase past the status quo. This leaves you with egalitarianism, which also stays on the neg because socioeconomic, religous, and other statuses are manipulated by PC (I demonstrated this earlier).As far as values, you have no option but to vote neg.C1: PC increases donation rates.This is empirically false, firstly as his own source demonstrates. However, this is backed up by other sources as well. For example, a study done exemplifies how opt-out systems cannot solve organ donation problems, and don't necessarily correlate to higher donation rates. [10]"To opt-out, which presumes someone’s willingness to donate after death unless they explicitly object while alive, would not be likely to increase the donation rate in the United States, new Johns Hopkins research suggests." [7]In fact, the opposite to an increase in donations is plausible:"A system of presumed consent is often described as consent for the disorganised... warned of the potential for provoking anti-donation feelings and even active anti-donation campaigning." [8]Even history reflects the failure of the system:"Indeed, when Brazil tried to implement a presumed consent regime in which objections could be lodged only by individuals for themselves, it provoked a backlash among the public, leading many people to refuse donation. The public reaction led to the repeal of the presumed consent law." [9]My opponent's second source is highly flawed. He cites a portion, but not the most important: the conclusion. It reads:"Presumed consent alone is unlikely to explain the variation in organ donation rates between countries. Legislation, availability of donors, organisation and infrastructure of the transplantation service, wealth and investment in health care, and public attitudes to and awareness of organ donation may all play a part, but their relative importance is unclear." [11] This demonstrates that presumed consent is NOT necessarily the cause of organ donation rates increasing, and shows that they have not solidified impact.This brings to mind the model I would propose, that correlation = causation. To fulfill his burden, my opponent must prove that a) PC correlates to an increase in organ donations, and b) that correlation = the cause of organ donatoin increases. This must be fulfilled for you to vote aff for two reasons. 1) a policy must be effective for a just society to implement it, and 2) this is the only valid way to show that a policy is effective.His third source is already negated with the evidence I showed earlier, regarding donation rates not increasing, and how empirically PC is flawed as a policy. Costs don't come into play if life is not improved. Life is valued above monetary gain. Also, the waiting list is actually a benefit to the neg since I have proved that donatoin rates don't increase with PC.Organ trafficking has no real tie-in to the debate, especially since the primary goal of PC is to alleviate the waiting list. Moreover, there is not significant existing evidence supporting the notion that it's effective to reduce trafficking; "only time will tell if this initiative will be successful." [11]C2: Preserves Autonomy on the whole.This argument is highly flawed. PC undermines the very basis and core of autonomy, which is the right and condition of self-government. By mandating and assuming individuals donate, this undermines the fundamentals of autonomy. Thus this point is moot and nullified.Underview:I already discussed how and why this should be disregarded. The instigator must make the rules and the contender must comply. My opponent imposing rules is unfair and entirely out of order. If he tries to convince you that this is solely "LD rules," you still vote neg because I specified in R1 that it was not to be exactly like LD, only similar in nature.I have provided a plethora of reasonings based off of my own case and my opponents why PC is an inherently bad idea. ecause values are the height, I've shown why both of his flow to neg, and how affriming the resolution harms both of mine. This means I'm winning both cases.The resolution is soundly negated.Sources: [1] http://thelawdictionary.org...[2] http://thelawdictionary.org...[3] http://www.nap.edu...[4] http://www.nature.com...[5] http://www.nap.edu...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://thelawdictionary.org...