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

A: A person can do what they choose with their own body. Pro says I never explained how the ban was placed for the good of everyone. I did, and now I will explain it even further, because, clearly, you didn't understand me the first time around. The ban is placed because not all people are kind and just. Are you so selfish that the only thing you want is to make a million dollars, and stand by while the poor and disadvantaged are preyed upon? We have evidence that the poor are the ones most likely to be exploited. The ban was placed to prevent this from happening. True, some people will lose the chance or making a few thousand bucks, but this will prevent lives from being destroyed by organ traders. Pro also said that exploitation of the poor was not a problem. I quote, "Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem" You are saying that "an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation" is not a problem?! EXPLOITATION IS, MOST CERTAINLY, A PROBLEM!!! Exploitation is defined as: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain. The rich is taking unfair advantage of the poor, for their own and ONLY their own gain. Pro said value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. However, it says, in US News, that most of these people get paid less than they actually wanted, and less than what the deal was. Pro said unable to find my source. You cannot find everything online! Also, apart from my 60% failure evidence, we have evidence from TransplantLiving.org that states that 35% of transplants fail within the first five years. This, on top of the 60% surgery failure, puts organ transplantation at about a 20-30% success rate. THIS IS NOT SAFE! Pro says that my evidence, which said that 92% of America does not want incentives, is irrelevant. You are saying that financial incentives will lessen organ shortages. Obviously, the only way this will happen is if people actually want incentives! I'm saying that 92% DON'T want incentives, meaning that legalizing them will not do much to solve our crisis. PRO said "In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful." You are saying that selling it will be just as helpful as donating it to a friend. This is not true. If this occurred, organs will only go to the wealthiest, instead of going to those who were in line first. Pro just agreed that markets are a good thing. However, I have evidence that states that "the risk of slipping from incentives into a market is too big to take. We've just been though two years of complete economic collapse at the inability to regulate markets because people cut corners, cheat [and] are not forthcoming. And there's no reason to think a market in organs would work any differently." Because we cannot regulate markets properly, they could be dangerous for both the donor and the recipient.