April PFD Topic

Thank you The topic states: Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation All I need to prove is that financial incentives, if permitted, will not change, or even worsen the status quo. meaning that either financial incentives will not increase donations, or they will be harmful. The Pro needs to prove that financial incentives will solve our organ shortages. Financial incentives for organ donation: ANY kind of incentives, relating to money, that might encourage someone to donate their organ. These incentives could include direct payment, tax credits, funeral coverage, etc. etc. Argument 1: financial incentives will not work First, no one wants to donate According to The National Kidney Foundation (http://www.kidney.org...) In a recent survey of families who refused to donate organs of their loved ones who have died, 92% said that payment would not have persuaded them to donate. This means that, even if incentives were legalized, it will not do anything in the path of encouraging donors. Thus, permitting it would be pointless. Second, wile there is concern that there is an organ shortage, that concern in itself does not represent an argument in favor of vending, because it is quite unclear that a vending-based system would be effective and it could well be destructive. There is no reason to use incentives; it will not work. It can actually do the opposite, and be harmful to society. Third, it will decrease donations. According to the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, November 2006, Organ selling would distort and undermine the altruism and common citizenship on which our whole organ donation system currently relies on. This means incentives would not increase the number of donors. It would only cause all altruistic donors to leave, causing a greater organ shortage than ever before. Argument 2: States rights This is not a Federal Issue. By permitting the use of financial incentives, the Federal government is basically saying that it has a say in organ donation, which is an issue of the state. The tenth Amendment, states have the say in all issues that the Constitution doesn't give to the Federal government, and Organ donation is not an issue given to the Federal government. Even though it is permitting, because it would be the first legislation on organ donation, the Federal government would be violating states rights on the issue of organ donation. Argument 3: Alternatives First, regenerating organs According to Harvard University, We can take tissue from a damaged organ, such as a urethra or a blood vessel, split the organ into different cell types. With these cells, we can grow, and duplicate organs using molds. We can use the molds and scaffolds to make organs, and then insert it inside the patient. Soon, the scaffolding can degrade, leaving the patient a flawless new organ. In just months, we will be able to heal patients quickly and efficiently. Second, organ printers According to WIREDSCIENCE A Missouri professor took several types of chicken heart cells and 3D printed them into large sheets with cell-friendly gel. The cells took over from there, sorting themselves into working order. Then they began beating, just as a heart would. Technology is already being developed for human organ printing. With the introduction of this new development, we will not need incentives, which we know is harmful. Argument 4: Morality First, devaluating human life According to the national kidney foundation,March,2011, Direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation are inconsistent with our values as a society. This means, by treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we wish to save. Second, insulting previous donors According to the New York Times, 2011, Providing any form of compensation for organs may be an affront to the thousands of donor families and living donors who have already made an altruistic gift of life and it could alienate Americans who are prepared to donate life saving organs out of humanitarian concern. This means, paying for organs will be insulting the thousands of people who donated their organ, or even gave up their lives to save lives, purely out of concern. Argument 5: Exploitation First Disadvantaged Donors Manipulated According to: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Nov 2006 The only donors who would go for the financial incentives would the vulnerable and disadvantaged. How could we be sure that paid donors were not being manipulated or even blackmailed? This means The poor would be most likely to donate, and they would be treated unfairly. In a society where poverty exists everywhere, we do not want that. Second Exploiting the Poor According to: The National Kidney Foundation, March 3, 2011 Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. This means Since the poor and disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation are manipulation and exploitation. Finally Broken Agreements According to: 2010; Gale Group Databases Rich patients in need of organs take advantage of the worlds poor. Promises of cash rewards for donations are sometimes not kept and when they are kept, they can be far less than agreed upon. This means Given these disparities, legal organ trade will always lead to the exploitation of impoverished donors. In conclusion, financial incentives will not solve the organ shortage crisis, and will certainly do more harm than good, since it didnt do any good. So for all these reasons, please vote for the negation side of this debate