April PFD Topic

I would like to apologize to my opponent when I presented the number of deaths (36 at the time) I did not mean for the deaths to create an emotional response, I only wanted to highlight that the current system is not working and has failed 36 144 people since this debate was first posted that being said allow me to address the points raised by the Con. Argument 1: The united states' substantial debt and organ donation is costly. The resolution "The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation". It does not suggest the federal government should provide the financial incentives, it clearly states it should permit the use of. In other words individuals or groups should be allowed to offer financial incentives, if anything cons point works against his argument, if the fed allowed a free market, then it would be another income stream for them, as they could tax the incentive. Argument 2: Families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated While this is true, I view this as a failing of the current system. If I die and will my estate to a charity, my family doesn't get to opt out of my request and keep my property. The current system which con supports is horrible, how you are meant to procure enough organs by approaching people right at the moment of, the death of a loved one and asking if they have any objection to donating the organs. Is it any wonder that con's current system does not meet the demand? An incentive based system will allow people to rationally arrange in advance , hopefully far from the emotional rollercoaster moment of their death, how their organs and the financial incentives they earn should be used and sparing their loved ones additional burdens. Argument 3: Donor indicates that the person is not paid. I can give two examples off the top of my head where donors are compensated for their donation, sperm donors and egg donors. But if Con wants to haggle I would gladly call people who donate their organs vendors, because we need them as con as already admitted the current system cannot meet the demand. Con will have you believe that it is less "noble" to expect to be compensated for your donation, but I ask you which is the more noble act, donating a kidney while receiving compensation and saving a life, or arguing that act is selfish and illegal which prevents such acts taking place thus allowing people to die. My opponent suggests the only harm I present "is death, which is inevitable anyway". While I agree death is inevitable, we can delay it for those on the list through organ donation, Con is suggesting that the 144 people who have died since this debate started, would have died anyway eventually so what do those deaths or all of the deaths caused by the lack of available organs mater. Lastly he suggest that I do not prove that financial incentives will work, we only have to look at the fact that there is a thriving black market in organs, or look at countries that have made financial incentives legal like Iran for instance, The Iranians began compensating for kidney donations in 1988 and eliminated the shortage of kidneys by 1999. I believe I have clearly shown that financial incentives can work, and the current system does not.