Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

ClarificationBefore I begin the round, I'd like to briefly clarify a few things. Firstly, the presumed consent system that pro is defending pertains to the deceased only. This may seem obvious, but I figured it was worth noting since I forgot to add that in to the resolution. Also, the resolution my opponent and I are debating doesn't necessarily pertain to the actions of a just society; I worded it slightly differently from the LD resolution. To clarify, my opponent cannot necessarily make the claim that a presumed consent system will work because the societies we are talking about in this debate are "perfectly just."That being said, on to my case. FrameworkThough this debate isn't being done in a strictly LD format, I would like to explain my framework in attempt make my position a bit easier to understand. The highest value within todays round should be justice based on resolutionality. Macmillan dictionary defines justice as, "treatment of people that is fair and morally right." The best way to achieve justice is through maximizing choice. Simply put, negating the resolution allows for more systems of obtaining organs for transplant. The affirmative is limited to defending the “opt-out” system. The negative is able to provide multiple counterplans that would work for different societies. Even if the counterplans contradict each other, they should be considered viable options for different societies because the actual specifics of a just society are dependent upon how justice is interpreted and understood.To elaborate on my framework, no society can be fully just; what makes a society just is the act of making decisions that promote “justice.” A requirement for a just society is harmony within its population and itself. The burden on the negative is to prove that the affirmative cannot reach increased harmony. C1: Presumed consent can backfire. Presumed consent does not always work. Boseley gives an example: “for instance the Brazilian government implemented a presumed consent system… only to abolish it one year later… citing public fear and criticism (1).” Wright shows that Brazil is not the only place where such a system is likely to fail, “Countries where autonomy is highly prized, such as North America… people may be more likely to donate when they feel they retain control of that decision (2).” Johns Hopkins continues, “Presumed consent would not likely to increase the donation rate in the United States (3).” There are several reasons that presumed consent often fails, first being family. Ultimately, a system that forces individuals to consult their families about organ procurement, or a system that completely eliminates the need for discussion is going to cause the least amount of conflict among families. For example, a presumed consent system in France would be unlikely to work because only 40% of the population currently discusses organ donation with their families (4). If consent is presumed for an individual there, and the family objects because no discussion has taken place, conflict arises. The second reason would be opposition to the plan. As John Hopkins suggested, the United States most likely wouldn’t be able to increase donation rates with such a system because of the huge value placed on autonomy. The same goes for Brazil. Here I have successfully pointed out multiple cases where presumed consent would not increase harmony. C2: Other choices. There are multiple ways to solve problems that presumed consent is unable to solve for. Different methods can work for different societies. Just because presumed consent would "work" for a specific society, doesn't mean another plan wouldn't be more successful.A: FORCED DONATIONThe first potential option is the idea of making organ donation compulsory. This essentially takes any affirmative impacts and turns them over to the negative side because compulsory organ procurement obviously ensures a high donation rate. Silver explains, “a person who chooses not to donate harms patients who need organs but are unable to get them… potential donors who reject donation create inefficient use of resources (5).” Societies that suffer from severe organ shortages can benefit from this system even more than with presumed consent. B: MANDATED CHOICEAnother potential option would be mandated choice, the act of forcing everyone to either opt in or opt out of donation, ensuring autonomy. This option is highly supported in countries such as shown by opinion polls in Maryland, “an overwhelming 90% would support mandated choice while a smaller percentage (60%) would support presumed consent (6).” Mandated choice solves the common problem of families making choices that go against their specific wishes because as Chouhan explains, “relatives have neither power nor opportunity to veto an individual’s decision.” Mandated choice can resolve family conflicts and raise a donation rate while preserving the most autonomy possible, a viable option in societies such as the United States. Couhan continues, “this system is justified by the view that people really ought to decide about how they want to be governed (7).” C: LEGALIZING ORGAN SALESWhile this option only pertains to living transplants, it is a just action to take in societies specifically suffering from problems pertaining to the black market organ trade. Such a plan is almost guaranteed to eradicate the black market. Hippen explains, “these protections distinguish a regulated system of incentives for organ procurement from the significant harms generated by organ trafficking (8).” This plan was specifically helpful in Iran, resulting in virtually no waiting list for kidneys, as well as eliminating the existing black market (9). As mentioned before, different societies with different needs and values can utilize the most just option for them specifically in the negative world because of the added choices.None of the policies I have mentioned above have to work in a "certian way." There are variations to each policy pertaining to what to do with unidentified bodies, how to educate the public, ect. In the negative world, societies have the freedom to morph these policies into what will best suit their needs.