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

First, I would like to refute my opponent's arguments. A. It is a person's own choice on what to do with his/her body. Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone. From studies in available countries, most donors receive MUCH less than they deserve. The ones most likely to go for financial incentives would be the poor. Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. Since the poor and disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation are manipulation and exploitation (The National Kidney Foundation, 2011) B: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs? Should something like blood and an important organ like…the kidney be treated the same? NO! For one, blood regenerates, and quickly too. Extracting blood is quick and easy. With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient’s life forever. C: Transplants are safe and effective. We are sacrificing millions of lives by banning incentives According to the LA Times March 13, 2011, transplants fail 60% of the time. They are not safe, and not at all effective. We also have evidence, from the National Kidney Foundation, March 3, 2011, that states: In a recent survey of families who refused to donate the organs of their deceased, 92% said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is 92%! D: 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. We have evidence that 90% of donations are to the donor’s family and friends. With the legalizing of incentives, someone will have much more difficulty asking his brother for a kidney, when his brother could have sold it…for maybe $90,000. This will not at all solve the organ crisis. It would only change from the receivers being the first in line, to receivers having the most money. E: People can use benefits for funeral costs or leave money to their family. Yes, that would be the ideal outcome of financial incentives. However, if financial incentives are legalized, there is no doubt that people will interpret it in other ways: the legalization of the buying and selling of organs. This will quickly turn into a market. “The risk of slipping from incentives into a market is too big to take. We’ve just been though two years of complete economic collapse at the inability to regulate markets because people cut corners, cheat [and] are not forthcoming. And there’s no reason to think a market in organs would work any differently.” [Live Science, August, 10, 2009] Now I will defend and extend my own contentions. You said that incentives are not wrong. However, providing any form of compensation for organs may be an affront to the thousands of donor families and living donors who have already made an altruistic gift of life and it could alienate Americans who are prepared to donate life-saving organs out of humanitarian concern. Paying for organs will be insulting the thousands of people who donated their organs, or even gave up their lives to save lives, purely out of concern B: Financial incentives do not solve. You said that I have no proof that incentives will decrease the number of donors. But you do not have any evidence that incentives will actually increase donations. As I stated earlier, 92% of people will not be persuaded by incentives. According to USA Today June 26, 2006, policymakers are unwilling to experiment with market incentives until researchers can show them that financial incentives would increase the supply of organs. It still has not been proven that using financial incentives will raise the number of available kidneys. C: Alternatives You said that organ regeneration is not an option. However, this technology is new. It is just beginning to rise. The research is being done by Harvard University, and about 10 people have already benefitted from them If assumed consent is applied, we just will not need financial incentives, which are obviously harmful. In places like Europe, their organ shortage is minimal, because 90% of their population is or will be an organ donor. So for all these reasons, please vote for the CON. Thank you.