A Just Society Ought to Presume Consent for Organ Procurement from the Deceased

A loving wife and mother of 3, Sarah Wright was desperately ill with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) - a terminal lung disease. She walked 5 miles in order to raise awareness for the desperate need for organ donors, which had taken her 4 hours, 3 hours more than the other participants. At the end, she was fighting for breath, but would not give up. Towards the end of her life, the disease only got worse, all because she did not get the proper care need due to lack of organ donors. At around 2:45 pm during the first week of October, she passed away, giving three of her organs, her two kidneys and liver, to two woman who had been needing the kidneys for years, and a man who had chronic liver disease. She had saved three lives leaving this earth, even though she had needed an organ herself. For the people who had suffered the same consequences as Sarah did, I stand in affirmation of this debate's resolution, that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. Black's Law Dictionary defines just as right; in accordance with law and justice. Presume also under Black's Law, is to assume before hand; to suppose true in the absence of proof. Limitations for the deceased: Ages newborn to 65, and must not have taken form of alcohol and/or any illegal drugs, including tobacco. Anyone who does not want to donate simply joins a national registry of those "opting out", and carry "opt out" cards. My core value in this debate is justice, which under Black"s Law is the fair and proper administration of laws. Under this definition, what had happened to Sarah and, according to Michigan Law Review, happens to 18 Americans every day is not just. Simply put, it's not right. A person should not have to wait for a response as to whether or not they continue to live or not. A just society will meet the reasonable health care needs of its residents. Under the definitions of presume and justice, justice would requires to limit human suffering, which is what the proposition is doing. According to the Baltimore Sun, Jay Bhatt, a former pres. of the American Medical Student Association says that "It is clear that we need a fundamental change to stop the human suffering we now have, and cut the health care costs that are hurting the economy. I believe we have reached a point in history at which is no longer just a political or economic issue; it is a justice issue" Couldn't have put it better myself. Contention 1 - Presumed consent will help restore the right to health care. The liberty cost of presumed consent is minor compared to the justice demand for saving lives. In the same way that American citizens lose certain freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, during times of war, an individuals right"s, such as freedom of religion, is overshadowed by the common good that justice intends to protect. Larry Kramer, an AIDS activist, stated the following on the website www.natap.org" I would like to close with some words from Dr. John Fung, who saved my life: "Patients are dying and the public still does not understand that saying no to donation means someone will die. No one wants to be so blunt. No one wants to raise the American conscience to make people feel that it is their human obligation to pass along their body to the living when they die. This is a systematic deficiency in American culture, the idea that you are out only for yourself and have little or no obligation to society as a whole." He also explains that "in many foreign countries this extreme shortage does not exist. That is because these countries (including but not limited to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Singapore, and Spain) have what is called a Presumed Consent organ collection system. That means that every person in that country is deemed to be an organ donor unless s/he specifically opts out." Rocco Andriola, a former chairman of the New York Organ Donor Network. on USA today that "objections to a "presumption" are far outweighed by this: It is morally and ethically repugnant to allow so many to die each year when their deaths are avoidable." Short, sour, and to the point. Contention 2 -Thousands of persons are now denied their right to receive health care. They are dying on waiting lists for organ donation. Sarah isn't the only one who waited. In the FIU Law review, Sara Naomi Rodriguez, a Juris doctor, admits that 113,555 people in this country right now are doing the exact same thing that Sarah did. Waiting "They are waiting for the phone call that will usher in a second chance at life. In a 2005 Gallup national survey, 95% of those surveyed said they "support or strongly support organ donation" Further, 78% of those surveyed said they "would be likely or very likely to have their organs donated after their death." That means more than 3 out of 4 people surveyed are literally willing to give their organs for those who are waiting for that second chance. That"s a majority of people right there. In the US govt, that is how most bills are passed. With this in mind, it would be logical that presumed consent would actually not just be ok, but rather make the majority of people satisfied, and of course at the same time help justice not just survive, but thrive. In conclusion, presumed consent should not be seen as a loss of liberty, but rather an honorable cause that a person, yes, can choose to do or not. The Aff. position for this debate supports my core value, justice, and a just society will meet the reasonable health care needs of its residents. My proposition is that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased, and I ask for an Aff. ballot on this debate. Thank you.