Living Organ Donors Should Be Allowed to be Compensated

Firstly, arguing the issue of double survival rate or double death rate etc is pointless. They are clearly not the same thing. A 94.5% survival rate is still a very hopeful survival rate in any case. Granted you'd have a better chance of survival receiving a living donor organ, but only roughly 3% better in the first year. Nevertheless, I never argued that cadaver organs were better, or even just as good, only that they were good enough and definitely workable. The difference is similar to making money by working an honest 9-5 job as opposed to stealing it. Clearly stealing it would probably be less effort, but that harms others. Therefore the 9-5 job is the better method of making money. Getting organs from living donors is better from the perspective of the recipient (not even that much better I might add), but it harms others in the process. The whole point about cadaver organs is that no one is harmed in the process. My opponent writes: "Compensating live donors saves lives that cannot be saved any other way." Again, that's simply untrue. Cadaver donations are a very real and very viable alternative, as has been demonstrated. I am again accused of dodging the point that compensating poor donors is no different to compensating people for risky professions, unjustly in my opinion. My opponent used the example of firemen initially. I cited a study that shows firemen as having one of the highest job satisfaction levels overall from any profession in America. Clearly this is hugely different to a massive 85% of compensated donors regretting their decision! I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether this point was properly addressed or not though. My opponent says, again missing my point: "Is my opponent seriously attempting to claim that it is bad to pay money to people who have no money because having money is bad for them the same way gambling is bad for gambling addicts?" Clearly the situation isn't as simple as just "paying money to people who have none". The situation is such that an insufficient amount of money is being offered to tempt people into making a decision that they will regret 85% of the time. It is like the gambling machine example in that people would be unfairly tempted into making a bad decision because they are unable to reason properly at a given time. My opponent then says: "To claim the poor are better off being poor is an even worse delusion my opponent has stated." I appeal to the fairness of the readers here - did I ever say that the poor are better off being poor? Of course not. I'm the one defending the rights of the poor here while my opponent wants to throw them a bone and help himself to their organs to the detriment of their health. In fact, I take that as somewhat of a personal insult to be frank. I don't know the details of my opponent's life, but I'd be willing to bet that I do more to benefit the poor and the homeless in my life than he does in his. Clearly there are problems with our society that leaves a number of people financially disadvantaged, and clearly something should be done about it in my opinion. However, throwing them a bunch of money to take their organs will not get them out of poverty. The only place that paid organ donations have been tried is Iran and it didn't help the poor there at all. He says: "To believe my opponent and the long list of opponents to compensated organ donation, there is no serious harm in being poor." Yeah ok, the WHO and scores of federal ethical committees all think there's no harm in being poor. The paid organ donations will very likely mean more lives saved due to more available organs. The primary objection to it is precisely that it will mean the exploitation of the poor. It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of virtually every federal ethical committee as well as the opinion of organizations like the WHO and various other organizations with significant knowledge of this area. He then claims that "...The WHO and other human rights groups that I do respect and admire have not considered that issue...". This is absurd. These are professional ethical committees all reaching somewhat of a consensus on this issue. Sure, they're human and they're not perfect, but it's a fair stretch of the imagination to state, because they disagree with you, that they have not considered the issue! If I get anything across in this last round I hope that it is that the position my opponent takes of fighting for the rights of the poor in society is a false one. It is a position he adopted without justification also. My opponent rattles on about studies (which aren't cited I remind you) showing the obvious fact that being poor is a bad thing. He then asserts out of nowhere that what he is proposing will benefit the poor and then accuses me of not caring. Clearly this is the sort of tactic employed by a person who is desperate. I encourage everyone to really think about the way my opponent has argued this case. He opens by pointing at the system that Iran has put in place and holds it up as an example of a flawless way to remedy this problem. One should instantly realize that if this was really the case then many other countries would have followed suit. I then point to reputable studies demonstrating exactly what was predicted would result from a paid organ donor scheme, that the poor would be exploited. At this point, my opponent then switches his case around. He leaves the fact that Iran's organ waiting list has been abolished alone and begins to make emotional appeals about how bad life is for the poor. From this he asserts that he's looking out for them because he just wants to give them money with no strings attached. He then asserts that I don't care about the poor, or the potential organ recipients for that matter. Any reasonable person would have to agree that what we've seen during this debate is clear evidence that the poor WILL be exploited under such a scheme, no doubt about it. I feel my opponent would've had a much stronger case if he'd just accepted the fact that the poor would be exploited and just argue that the extra organs available outweighs the bad. However, this was not his strategy. In my mind he made somewhat of the same mistake Hitler made during WW2, he decided to fight on all fronts. My opponent refused to concede any points, even when they were made as clear as day. In closing, I feel my opponent has not properly addressed the main objection to his proposal, but rather denied it in the face of overwhelming evidence. The reason that no countries (other than the exception of one totalitarian regime) allow organ donor compensation is for precisely the very reason that I put forth and that my opponent failed to properly address. Thank you for the discussion, I learned a lot during these rounds, as I hope everyone reading did as well. I hope this has been an entertaining debate to follow also :) Thanks, Rob.