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

Thanks, Con. Re: A person can do what they choose with their own body. Con begins, "Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone." This is a contradictory statement. Con cannot say that a person should be able to do whatever they choose, but then say that they shouldn't be able to a second later. Further Con never explains how or why this is or the good of everyone. I also contend that it's not for the good of the willing buyer and seller. If I wish to sell a kidney for a million dollars, then Con cannot say "it's for my own good" that the government prohibits this transaction. The individual should be able to make personal decisions about their own body that do not inflict upon the rights of others. Con also says that most donors receive less than they deserve. Of course value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. 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 and in fact view it as a positive. This is an option (for those who are willing) to make money and help save lives simultaneously. Personally, even though I definitely could us the money, I would not be willing to sell my organs unless for a substantial amount of money. If this could really help me, Con is only hurting me - and the recipient - by prohibiting this. So far, Con hasn't proven that a person should not be able to do what they please with their own person. Re: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs? Con writes, "Should something like blood [and a kidney] be treated the same? ... With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient's life forever." First, it doesn't matter if one process is more dangerous than another. Patients choose to have plastic surgery for shallow reasons despite the risks, even causing some to die [1]. If those risky procedures are still available, this type of surgery should be an option too. Second, Con completely ignored the most paramount aspect of this contention. In the last round I pointed out that people CREATE life for money (egg and sperm donation), though Con is suggesting we shouldn't be able to SAVE lives for money. Con must justify this hypocrisy. Re: Transplants are safe and effective. Con provides a statistic from the L.A. Times; however, upon searching the web I could not locate the source. I'd like Con to please provide a link or cited source proving his statistic. Nevertheless, his criticisms are as follows: First, that transplants are not too safe and fail 60% of the time. This general figure does not apply to all kinds of transplants. According to the Mayo Clinic, a liver transplants carries a risk to the donor's life of less than 1 percent, and it's just just 0.03 for a kidney [2]. Moreover, this procedure is just as risky as surrogate motherhood and yet that is legally available for purchase. Furthermore, this only suggests that organ donating is not successful -- not that it shouldn't be available for money. Once again, a buyer and consumer are responsible for understanding the risks of a particular trade. The potential danger only increases the value of the procedure. Second, Con mentions that 92% of families who chose not to donate their loved one's organs said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is completely and utterly irrelevant and in fact and in fact a contention in my favor. As I explained in the last round, those who are morally opposed to this procedure or who do not think it is worth the risk will simply not participate in these kinds of transactions. It's no different than saying those who are against abortions should not seek them, or those who don't like Cheese Doodles do not have to buy them. Re: Money will sway people from donating. Con provides a scenario in which one does not donate their kidney to a family member because they choose to sell it for money instead. I see no problem with this. 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. Re: People can us the money to pay for funerals and other expenses. Here Con did not respond to the concept of funerals one iota. Instead he suggested that a market for organs would arise, to which I would completely agree and argue as a good thing. I'll use this opportunity to expand on why a market for organs would be helpful... In Takes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative, author James Taylor advocates using markets to increase the supply of organs available for transplantation [3]. In a 2004 journal article, economist Alex Tabarrok argues that allowing organ sales, and elimination of organ donor lists will increase supply, lower costs and diminish social anxiety towards organ markets [4]. The Economist argued that if 0.06% of Americans between 19 and 65 were to sell one kidney, the national waiting list would disappear - which is exactly what happened in Iran [5]. Again, why is saving lives a bad thing? Next, Con attempts to defend his own contentions. He begins by saying that financial incentives for donors would insult those who donated strictly out of humanitarian concern. I don't see why. I pointed out in the last round that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. While one's motives might be more selfish than another's, the original donor made the decision to give for free and that was good deed they should stand behind. They lose nothing from legalizing this policy. Con's next argument is that I have no evidence that incentives will increase the number of donors. However, Con himself completely contradicted his own argument a few paragraphs earlier. In point D, he wrote - and I quote - "Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to donate." Further there is indeed evidence that incentives will definitely drastically increase the number of available kidneys as evidenced by the Iranian example and the laws of supply and demand. Con writes, "You said that organ regeneration is not an option." I actually said it wasn't an option in all or many procedures, which is why we need to seriously consider financial incentives for people in need. If you were dying, and somebody wasn't willing to give you their kidney but agreed to sell it to you, wouldn't you want the option to establish this trade legally? Con's final point is at if assumed consent is applied, it will disregard the need for organ donation. This is completely false. First, many people will likely choose to take away consent for religious or moral reasons. Second, this completely disregards my point that this can benefit those who are willing and who wish to sell an organ while they are alive. In conclusion of this round, my opponent hasn't proven that organ donation is unethical or more dangerous than other legalized procedures (for money). Meanwhile, I've proven my proposal as both practical, effective and morally superior, as it respects an individual's personal freedoms. Thank you. [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.aynrand.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://econjwatch.org... [5] http://www.economist.com...