Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Thank you for accepting this challenge. Before I get started, I would like to define some terms that I think are important to this debate.First, presume consent as defined by The Canadian Liver Foundation means that a person is presumed to have consented to organ donation in the case of their accidental death. Second, organ procurement, is defined by UK HealthCare, as “the removal or retrieval of organs and tissues for transplantation”. I will be interchangably using the terms "presumed consent system" and the "opt-out system" as well as their abbreviations throughout this debate as they are the same thing.Value/Value Criterion: The value for this debate, or what the debaters should base their arguments on so that the resolution is upheld. The value that both of us will most likely be debating for is justice since the resolution asks debaters to define what a just society would look like. Where we the debaters will differ is how we are aiming to prove that our side upholds this value. The Pro side has shown that s/he is using societal welfare (doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people) to try to prove that his/her contentions uphold the value of justice. Whoever proves that their value criterion, (the term that I previously described that should uphold the value) is more important to this debate will prove that their contentions are more important to a just society and therefore wins the debate. Now, my value criterion for this debate is individual rights. According to dictionary.com, an individual right is “the liberty of an individual to exercise freely those rights generally accepted as being outside of governmental control”. Individual rights are the most important components to justice because the purpose of justice is to ensure that everyone has these basic liberties. If it is proved that presumed organ procurement does not allow people to have their individual rights, we must conclude that a just society would not adhere to such a policy.Observation: Before going further and onto my contentions, I would like to make an observation. If presumed consent for organ procurement was to be put into place, it would take the form of an opt-out program where people are automatically donors then can choose to not be a donor. This means the aff defends an opt-out program, because the majority of experts on this topic say that is the only feasible way to carry out presumed consent.Contention 1:Opt-out program is not the solution to the need for organs. While many believe that because of presumed consent, the amount of organs ready for transplanting into needy patients will skyrocket, many researchers have found that this is not the case. After studying data[1] which compared the DPM (donors per million population) of countries with presumed consent and express consent (the opt-in system, like the one that the U.S. has adopted) researchers as John Hopkins theorized that just because the opt out system was in place, didn't mean that the organ donation rates skyrocketed like many said that they would.Brian J. Boyarsky, a John Hopkins researcher who conducted the interviews states: "It does not appear that by simply having presumed consent legislation on the books that donation rates will rise."Dorry L. Segev, an associate professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine comments: "Opt-out is not the magic bullet; it will not be the magic answer we have been looking for. With opt-out the perception becomes, 'We will take your organs unless you take the time to fill out a form.'”Almost all countries, excluding countries such as Austria, go to the deceased person’s family for a final decision on whether or not they would still like to have their relative's organs donated, which can often lead to them opting out and therefore autonomy (the act of governmening choices that should be made by onself) is not ensured. This obviously infringes on the citizen’s individual rights, and couldn’t be accepted by a just society.Contention 2:Mandatory Choice is a better solution to the need for organs. By requiring people to acknowledge whether or not they would like to donate their organs after death, many more participants would enroll. This can be shown by the data which polled americans asking if they would approve to have their organs donated. According to pyschologicalscience.org, in the United States, 85 percent of Americans say they approve of organ donation, but only 28 percent give their consent to be donors by signing a donor card.This shows that if people were required to make the choice, the amount of donations would spike up immensely. The system of mandatory choice is the best of both the opt in and opt out systems, as they allow for people to make their own choices, so that a relative doesn’t have to make the final decision for the deceased person. This ensures autonomy, and gives each person their OWN individual rights.Contention 3:Presuming actions infringes on people’s individual rights.It is just to ask someone before presuming things about them, especially if the action that will be occurring could affect their individual rights or wishes, a great reason as to why many procedures are hardly ever presumed. How can presumed consent be allowed if it contradicts already established moral truths? By assuming that ‘so and so’ would like to have their organs donated because they haven’t opted out of the system, the government would undoubtedly be infringing on the rights of citizens, and we can’t believe that a just society would blatantly harm our individual rights, another reason why the resolution should be negated. REFUTATIONS:https://docs.google.com...[1]:Source: s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="605px;" height="352px;" />http://www2.warwick.ac.uk... NowensteinPhD Candidate,Department of Sociology,European University Institute, Italy