WODC: Organ Procurement and Just Societies

Thanks to Arc for this debate. I apologize for taking so long to post--his arguments were novel and I wanted to take time to consider them before responding. I will now address Con's case.OVERVIEWCon is completely correct in saying that I must defend an "opt-out" system, and that he is free to offer or defend any other system for organ procurement out there that he so desires. However, since he has chosen to offer a counterplan instead of passive negation, he has incurred an equal burden of proof in this round. He has given voters a choice: an opt-out system (OOS) or a mandated choice system (MCS). If he cannot show that the former is the best option of the two, he cannot win this debate.CON's CASEArguments against Presumed Consent (PC)P1. JusticeCon's argument here is fairly straightforward: it is unjust to violate our right to choose, and PC violates this right. There are two good rebuttals to be made here: (1) PC does not actually violate the right to choose, and (2) the rights of the dead should not outweigh the rights of the living.As to the first argument, for the right of choice to be violated, choice has to be denied. As long as you can, at the end of the day, choose whether or not your organs are harvested your right to choice has not been abridged. PC sets organ donation as a default setting--if you do nothing, your organs can be procured after your death. However, you are still free to object to this, and to say "no, I don't want my organs excised after I die." In this way, choice is preserved because you can still refuse. And, if you choose to do nothing, then you have chosen, by default, to go with the default option. Either way, you're still choosing the outcome--you can choose to object and not have your organs removed, or you can choose to do nothing and allow your organs to be removed. Your choice is still preserved.Regarding the second point, we can refer back to my case, specifically my Contention Three. But, more than that (i.e. weighing the rights of the living vs. the rights of the dead), we can also weigh the rights themselves. Does the right to choice outweigh the right to life? I would argue that indeed, it does not. And this provides us an interesting third argument against Con's assertions here. Consider, if I choose to murder someone, I have done something wrong. I had a right to choose, but my victim had a right to life. Society and most ethicist agree that in that situation, the victim's right to live trumps the murder's right to choose and right to freedom of action. Analogously, the person in need of a life-saving organ has their right to life in jeopardy. The possible donor has their right to choice in jeopardy if Con's arguments are to be believed. When we weigh these rights, former outweighs the latter. So even if Pro's position somehow infringes the right to choice, it is still moral because the right to life takes priority.P2. Rights and WishesI would simply cross-apply here much of what I just said: the right to choice is not abridged in my world.I will take a moment to briefly discuss the mentally ill, however, as this is a unique point. The Pro advocacy is different from an opt-in system in this way. An opt-out gives people the choice not to object, or to object. An opt-in gives people the choice to agree or not to agree. Both systems require informed consent, either by proxy in some countries, or by the person themselves. The mentally ill, since they cannot provide informed consent (they cannot know whether or not they wish object), would either need a lawful proxy making such decision on their behalf or would need to be exempted. This can be done under the umbrella of an OOS. Therefore, this argument doesn't actually clash.Again, if an agent is incapable of consenting, you cannot presume their consent. Consider, I can presume the a dog's consent for a procedure because dog's are unable to consent period. There is no consent to presume. I can however presume the consent of rational persons, because they are able to consent.P3. Donation RatesThis is a very important argument to assess. First, since this resolution is not limited to any specific nation, but is instead question what a hypothetical "just society" would do, we should look at aggregate numbers to evaluate utilitarian impacts. In other words, Con's examples of the U.S. and Brazil are cherry-picked and don't say anything about the broader trends.But, I would also note that regarding his U.S. example, that is largely how the program is sold and marketed. As I just pointed out, choice is still present in my world, and so if we emphasize this, we can counteract the issues Con fears may arise.Additionally, Con's Brazil example really doesn't substantiate his claim. According to Con's own source, the reason that Brazil's policy failed was not necessarily due to the OOS, but rather due to a lack of faith in the medical sector as a whole. [1] Unless Con can show that his system is going to be more likely to increase faith in a broken medical system than mine, this is really a moot point. Moreover, if we improved the medical system in Brazil, there is no reason given by Con's source that OOS would not work.Finally, Con really has no hard numbers here, and hard numbers (like those I cite) should be preferred to vague analysis since they are more easily quantified and impacted in the debate space.Arguments for a MCSP1. JusticeThis is clearly a non-unique point because my system also preserves choice.P2. Organ ShortagesFirstly, please note that an OOS system reduces organ shortfalls as well--and perhaps does so more effectively than MCS. According to sources presented in my case, under an OOS system, only about 1% of people refuse to have their organs procured once they die. A good exemplar of this statistic is Austria, "which uses opt-out, [and] nearly everyone (99 percent) [donates]." [2] Whereas, in the Illinois example, only 60% of its population are donors. [1] So, we're comparing around 99% of people as donors to 60% of people as donors. Under a utilitarian calculus, we should prefer the former to the latter.Additionally, Con only gives us 1 example of an effective MCS--Illinois. I cite studies that span multiple countries. Con's empirical evidence is therefore limited to a very small slice of the globe, making it less credible, and certainly more experimental. Other examples of MCS show less promising outcomes than those in Illinois. In Texas, for example, when MCS was instituted, "80% of drivers declined to donate." [3] This really undermines the thrust of what Con is claiming here--it seems as if more people are apt not to donate than donate under an MCS system--at least in Texas. In fact, just "two states that have mandated choice programs through departments of motor vehicles report relatively low numbers of pro-donation registrants compared with nondonors or undecided persons." [4]P3. Best of Two WorldsThis section really advances no new arguments as this very dichotomy is the entire debate. The problems with MCS include lower donor participation rates than my world, logistic challenges such as enforcing the mandate, and more. For instance, how what happens if someone fails to choose before they die? What happens if someone refuses to choose or is undecided? What if the deceased as no living relatives or heirs and is also undecided? Do we penalize people who fail to choose? Con needs to advance reasonable answers to these logistical challenges if he is to truly show that MCS is better than OOS.P4. Ease of Choice and AutonomyAgain, the idea that everyone will always conveniently make a decision before they die is faulty--and we need to know what would happen in an MCS in the case where no selection was made.Really, this is point is merely a rehashing of prior assertions.ConclusionCon has failed to show that MCS is better. It has myriad unanswered logistical issues and will not maximize donation rates. OOS allows for choice while still saving more lives and harvesting more organs than MCS, and is thus the preferable world of the two. Thank you, and please look to Pro in this debate.SOURCES1 - https://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.nytimes.com...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://annals.org...Thanks again to Arc. I believe we have agreed in the comments to "pass" on R5 in order to ensure the timely progression of the WODC Tournament; I would appreciate it if Con could confirm in this in one of his next speeches. I turn over the reigns to him at this time.