The USFG should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation

Before I begin I would like to apologize for not providing links to my sources as my opponent did. This case was originally made to be debated in class and I have all the evidence as a hard copy, however I will, at my opponents request, post the URL link to any piece of evidence he wishes to view. Also, before I move on to attack my opponents case I feel the need to point out that the pro is advocating an organ market, involving a direct cash exchange for the transplanted organs. The pro side is not (or has not up to this point) arguing for financial incentives based on tax breaks or anything else, they are only arguing for a market and since both of the Pro sides contentions uphold the idea of an organ market if I prove that an organ market is wrong I win this round because both of his contentions fall. In the pro's contention one the claim is made that the current organ donation system is discriminatory. I could not disagree more. While I agree that African Americans are under-represented in the current organ donation system I believe it is because of other factors. One of these factors is the fact that 25.8% of blacks are in poverty (http://www.npc.umich.edu...) another is that 19.5% of African Americans have absolutely no health insurance. (http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov...) another reason could be minorities distrust of the largely European American medical establishment. He claims that the regulations put in place by OPTN are "based on discriminatory and disproven medical theory" however my opponent has not provided any source specifically disproving the need for these regulations, only the opinions of a precious few doctors. These regulations are put in place by OPTN and approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, so until my opponent provides evidence PROVING (not suggesting) that these regulations are "based on discriminatory and disproven medical theory" we can assume that they are valid. Furthermore the fact that these antigens are less common in minorities is merely a sad reality, not discrimination. Now to move on to the Pro's contention two: he claims that an organ market would end the organ shortage. Firstly, significant evidence indicates otherwise. In fact, financial incentives could even DISCOURAGE donors by destroying the altruism of an organ donation. As pointed out in the article "An ethically responsible approach to increasing the organ donation rate" (I will provide a link if my opponent wishes) "Monetary reimbursement destroys the altruism of the donation process, a component that many donor families find alluring and therapeutic." As I pointed out in my case, there are already states in the U.S. who provide financial incentives, however their donation rates are actually lower than the U.S. as a whole! Another thing we must look at when considering Pro's contention two is the net benefits of an organ market. Even if we assume that the organ shortage could be completely eliminated, we must look at the implications behind an organ market. By allowing an organ market we are allowing organs to be treated as commodities which is not something we can allow. As I stated in my case, the market system would allow for horrors such as a bank taking a kidney when a person owes them money. As Richard Demme stated in the article "Ethical Concerns About an Organ Market" (will provide a link if my opponent wishes) "No one should have a claim on your vital organs, even if you wish to assign a specific value to them. When our parts are worth more than our persons, we are in a situation where people can be treated as a means to an end, and not an end in themselves." By treating human beings as commodities we can open the doorway to many morally wrong things. Of course the pro will argue that we are saving lives, but as the National Kidney Foundation states: "By treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save." But there are many ways we could save lives. Perhaps, as Richard Demme states: "Or imagine, we could have a national lottery of all the healthy people in the country, every tenth person would be asked to give up a kidney." this solution would certainly end the organ shortage, but it would result in national outcry and angry because it morally wrong. Another terribly wrong "solution" to this shortage would be to establish "human farms" where we take a group of individuals we do not like and harvest their organs. Imagine all the lives we could save! Two kidneys, a liver, a heart, an intestine, and countless skin grafts from each individual we force into this! Of course such a "solution" is terribly wrong and cruel, and would never, and should never, be allowed. The same can be said for financial incentives. Before I end this round I would like to thank my opponent for providing a thought provoking and challenging case (and I'm not just saying that for "conduct" points.) and I would like to point out that the organ shortage is temporary. We will find a solution to it, but financial incentives are not the answer. We must not give up our principles to end a temporary problem. Please Negate.