Resolved: The US Government Should Legalize Financial Incentives For Organ Donation

Thanks, Con. My opponent's arguments against financial incentives for organ donation are as follows... A) Ethics: Organ Donation is Unethical 1. The ultimate decision of donating is made by the people. If it is unethical, no one will do it. I agree, though I don't see how this proves that organ donation is unethical. If anything it's a contention in my favor, because it suggests that financial incentives will not corrupt people to donate organs for the wrong reasons. In fact this negates some of Con's other contentions as well. Also, this contention couldn't be taken seriously because of the word "all" used. Clearly people do unethical things. Either people don't care that they're acting unethically, or what is unethical can be considered subjective. Regardless this contention doesn't affirm the premise that organ doning for money is unethical. 2. Direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation are inconsistent with our values as a society. It devalues human life. Con warns against treating the body as property; however, treating the body as property is what we do all the time philosophically. For instance we suggest that we have the right to our personhood, and we can do what we want with our own bodies because they are "our property." For instance if I wanted a tongue piercing, I can claim "I own myself" or that nobody else has authority over me, as stating contrary constitutes slavery. As such, I contend that we can treat our values as "property" and doing so would not be immoral or unethical. I say this notion is very consistent with our values in society. 3. Many religions are against giving away organs, whether the person is deceased or alive. This means, those in the religious groups would not support organ transplantation, decreasing the amount of organ supply. It doesn't matter if certain religious people are against it. Those people are free to make the choice not to sell their organs. Also, this doesn't prove whatsoever that organ donations will decrease, because clearly those who are already against organ donation for religious reasons are already not donating regardless of the legality of selling organs. None of these points have proved that selling organs is unethical. B) Solvency: Financial Incentives will lead to less organ donations. 1. Kidney selling would distort and undermine the altruism and common citizenship on which our whole organ donation system currently relies. Incentives would cause all altruistic donors leave, causing a greater organ shortage than ever before. Con must explain or prove this to be true; he cannot just assert it as fact. Why would people stop doing good things just because other people have different incentives to do the same thing? 2. A program of financial incentives for organ donation is likely to aggravate mistrust with the U.S. health care system. Con explained that there is already mistrust within the health care system, but provides no evidence that financial incentives would increase these notions. Also, he says that nobody will trust the financial incentives, but so what? All that means is that people would choose not to get money in return if they choose to donate. If they choose not to donate then it's no different than it was before. Con is also once again making a mass generalization by saying nobody will trust the system. Con hasn't proven that financial incentives will not work and lead to fewer donations. C) Alternatives: There are alternatives to financial incentives. We do not need incentives. 1. There is technology that can regenerate organs. While this is true, we are extremely limited in this regard due to great Republicans like George W. Bush who wish to inhibit stem cell research and refuse investing in this type of life-saving technology. Also, this is clearly not an option for all individuals and organs. 2. Presumed consent is an option. Unless they indicated their refusal beforehand, their organs will be used for the good of humanity. You can implement a similar alternative and yet still allow for financial exchange of organ donation. For instance some organs can be donated while some can be purchased. Also consider something like a kidney where you can live with just one. An individual should be able to sell one if that's their prerogative, and receive financial incentives for themselves while they are still living. Even though there are alternatives to financial incentives that will promote donations, financial donations do not hurt the process and can in fact likely help. With that said, here are some of my opening offensive arguments... ************************************************************************* The human body belongs to the person who possesses it inherently. It is for all intents and purposes akin to "property" in that forced authority over another is slavery or immoral. If one wants to provide compensation to another in exchange for their organ, the person has the right to exercise authority over their own body and sell an organ. If the exchange is mutual, the law should exist to protect the rights of the individual to make that trade - not prohibit it. There are many reasons one might choose to sell an organ. Likewise there are many reasons one chooses to sell their eggs or sperm. We are also allowed to sell blood, bone marrow and plasma [1, 2]. Why should those be legal but organ selling not legal? In the case of selling eggs or sperm, you're literally creating a life for money. So why is that okay, but saving a life for money is not okay? Con should answer these questions. Additionally, most of the time these procedures are very safe and effective [3, 4] so I see no reason to criminalize a fair trade with significant benefits and minimal harm. We know that despite the success of organ transplants, organ donations are going down which is costing millions of lives [5]. Meanwhile, selling organs can provide mutual benefits to both the recipient and donor. If cash incentives are permissible, people will give this option serious consideration if they find it to be incredibly useful and valuable to them in their own lives. Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to rethink the option which will most likely save many lives. Con must explain why this logic is invalid and/or immoral. He must also explain why the government should have the right and authority to control people's bodies and how they act and trade. Also, keep in mind that noting the government has the power to do this is not the same as arguing why they should do this. Finally on this point, people could write in their will that they'd like to sell their organs upon their death to help pay for funeral costs or leave as money for their family. This is good for the economy as it contributes to purchasing things on the market, paying off debts, and can even be taxed by the government via estate tax (or not). Either way, this is a legitimate and useful option for many needy families. [1] http://www.marrow.org... [2] http://www.biolifeplasma.com... [3] http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk... [4] http://www.summitforlife.org... [5] http://www.sciencedaily.com...