The USFG should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation

"Once you insert monetary gain into the equation of organ donation, now you have a market. Once you have a market, markets are not controllable, markets are not something you can regulate, The problem with markets is that rich people would descend upon poor people to buy their organs, and the poor don't have any choice about it." Seeing as I agree with organ transplantation expert Francis Delmonico, I strongly negate this resolution. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. Financial Incentive: Monetary benefit offered to consumers, employees, and organizations to encourage behaviors or actions that otherwise would not take place. (the Business Dictionary) Organ donation: the surgical process of providing one or more organs to be used for transplantation into another person. (organdonor.gov) Asset: Property owned by a person or company, regarded as having financial value (Merriam Webster) Contention one: Using financial incentives for Organ Donation causes the commodification of the Human body. Financial Incentives do not necessarily mean a direct cash exchange will occur for organs; however they are still assigned a monetary value, which makes them an asset. If we allow organs to become assets or commodities, that means that others may have a claim to them as Richard Demme states in the Journal of the National Medical Association: "The point is, that if everyone accepts that organs are commodities like anything else that could be bought or sold, then organs could be treated like other things of value that we barter. In such a system, it would be logical that creditors might have a say about what happens to your assets. If you list your organs along with the rest of your assets, others might have a claim on them, and that is morally repugnant." If we allow organs to become assets or commodities, it is logical to assume that if you owe money to a creditor and they must seize your assets, your organs can be included. Imagine the bank foreclosing on someone who cannot pay their mortgage, and seize their kidney along with their house! Some might argue that the positives of financial incentives (such as the possibility of saving lives due to increased donation) outweigh these evils, but that is not valid, because as the National Kidney Foundation states: "By treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save." While the organ shortage is undoubtedly a major problem, we cannot trade our dignity and possibly even our freedom with our own body to counter it. Contention two: Financial Incentives will be used improperly. Sub-point A: Financial incentives will cause the extortion of the poor and disadvantaged. According to the National Kidney Foundation: "Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. Furthermore, since the economically disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation could be characterized as exploitation." Creating a market for organs would allow the wealthy to buy their way to the top of the waiting list, receiving organs that should go to others instead. This problem is not just speculation, it has many historical precedents. For example, prior to the 1994 passing of the "Transplantation of Human Organs act" in India, there existed a free market where organs were bought and sold. The act banned this, because in the market system Indian poor were being exploited and coerced into donating organs. According to the article An ethically responsible approach to increasing the organ donation rate "a financially desperate family that holds a moral objection to organ donation may be coerced by a financial incentive." Allowing exploitation to decrease the organ shortage is unacceptable. Sub-point B: Financial Incentives will cause organ theft to increase. As previously mentioned, until 1994 India had a free market organ donation system, and there were many cases of organ theft. One notorious example was the case where "The kidneys of nearly 1,000 unsuspecting people had been removed in a leading city hospital by prominent doctors. The"donors" had been lured with offers of jobs and their kidneys removed under the pretext or removing blood." Another example, in Isreal organs can be bought and sold freely and according to CNN "the Israeli army kidnapped and killed young Palestinians to harvest their organs in the 1990s." When an object has a value attached to it, there are always people willing and able to steal that object for its value, organs are no exception. Yet another example comes from the Republic of Kosovo. In 1999 Kosovo, not yet fully independent, had no laws prohibiting the sale of organs and as a result during the Kosovo war (according to the huffington post) the Kosovo Liberation Army killed 300 ethnic Serb prisoners of war and sold their organs for profit. Atrocities such as these cannot be allowed to happen, and they will happen if we allow organs to be assigned a value, which is why this resolution must be negated. Contention 3: Financial Incentives are not a viable means to increase organ donation. According to a poll from the national kidney foundation, 92% of people who refused to donate organs said that financial incentives would not affect their decision in any way. Furthermore, another poll from the Wall Street Journal shows that financial incentives would not increase 68% of Americans willingness to donate organs. In fact only 8% stated that it would greatly increase their willingness. These polls clearly show that financial incentives would only increase organ donation slightly, if at all. However, according to USAtoday: "Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin allow tax deductions of up to $10,000 to compensate living donors" these states already provide financial incentives in the form of tax breaks! Are organ donation rates higher in these states? No. in fact, according to information found from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (part of the U.S. health and human services department) the organ donation rates in these states are, on average, 9% LOWER than the rate of the United States as a whole! Providing financial incentives for organ donation has serious moral implications such as commidification, organ theft, and extortion, and there is strong evidence to prove that they do not even increase the donation rate at all! Since financial incentives provide no benefits, and cause serious moral problems, I strongly urge you to negate this resolution.