Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Will be changing presumed consent to PC everywhere. I affirm and value morality. This value is best because ought implies moral obligation. The value criterion is util or maximizing the overall good. This is best because it's what policy makers look at when making policies. I agree to your definition of PC, ANY STUDIES THAT USE SOFT CONSENT ARE NONTOPICAL. All my studies are about hard consent and specifically proper implementations of the topic. Contention 1: PC Increases Donation Rates Source (1): "With some notable exceptions (see, e.g., Johnson and Goldstein 2003, 2004), most previous studies have pointed out that, on average, PC countries do not produce significantly higher organ donation rates. Moreover, several authors have hypothesized that this lack of correlation may be explained by the fact that PC laws are rarely enforced and that, in practice, family consent is always required before organs are extracted. In this article, we argue that legislative defaults on organ donation may affect the consent decisions of the families, even if they are not enforced. First, we use a simple model to illustrate how PC laws may affect organ donation rates. In addition, using a panel of countries, we show that, once other determinants of organ donation are accounted for, cadaveric donation rates are 25% to 30% higher on average in PC countries. The magnitude of this estimate does not vary much across the different specifications of our empirical model. Furthermore, using the panel structure of our data we are able to reject the presence of additive fixed effects." The key part is "once other determinants of organ donation are accounted for". If my opponent's evidence cites one example where PC wasn't implemented properly, prefer my evidence. Source (2): "Studies reviewed Five studies comparing donation rates before and after the introduction of legislation for PC (before and after studies); eight studies comparing donation rates in countries with and without PC systems (between country comparisons); 13 surveys of public and professional attitudes to PC. Results The five before and after studies represented three countries: all reported an increase in donation rates after the introduction of PC, but there was little investigation of any other changes taking place concurrently with the change in legislation. In the four best quality between country comparisons, PC law or practice was associated with increased organ donation"increases of 25-30%, 21-26%, 2.7 more donors per million population, and 6.14 more donors per million population in the four studies. Other factors found to be important in at least one study were mortality from road traffic accidents and cerebrovascular causes, transplant capacity, gross domestic product per capita, health expenditure per capita, religion (Catholicism), education, public access to information, and a common law legal system." Both these cards take other factors into account Advantages: Lives and Money (3) "Higher rates of organ donation not only result in saved lives, but [also] frequently in saved financial resources. Spain esti- mates that its 10,000 renal transplants save approximately $207 million every year (L"pez-Navidad et al., 2002). Compared to dialysis, transplanting a kidney is beneficial both in quality of life for the patient and in money spent. In the United States, there are currently over 50,000 people on the waiting list for kidney transplants, which potentially represents a large savings in healthcare expenditures." So higher rates save lives and money, leading to a benefit for the community on the whole. Solves Illegal Organ Markets (4) "Organ trafficking operates in various ways. Victims can be kidnapped and forced to give up an organ; some, out of financial desperation, agree to sell an organ; or they are duped into believing they need an operation and the organ is removed without their knowledge. Some victims are murdered to order if a large sum has been paid in advance. This is what Susan Sutovic thinks happened to her son. This illegal trade has risen to such a level that an estimated 10,000 black-market operations involving purchased human organs now take place annually " more than one every hour " according to WHO. It estimates that organ trafficking accounts for five to 10 per cent of all kidney transplants worldwide. Children, especially those from poor backgrounds or children with disabilities, are often targeted. In May this year, an eight-year-old British schoolgirl died at a clinic in India, and her family say they suspect she was "murdered" by medics intent on harvesting her organs. Gurkiren Kaur Loyal"s parents took her to see a doctor in the Punjab, when she began suffering from dehydration, and within seconds of receiving an injection she collapsed and died. During the post mortem, Gurkiren"s organs were removed and have not been returned. The Birmingham coroner told the family that without them, or the Indian post mortem report, he is unable to record a cause of death." Organ trafficking only increases because the demand is not met, increased rates solve. Contention 2: Preserves Autonomy on the Whole (5) "Proponents of PC can plausibly claim that under their proposal there will be fewer mistakes than under the current system. They can claim this not only because a majority of Americans prefer to donate their organs, but also because it is plausible to believe that a person who does not want to donate is more likely to opt out under a system of PC than a person who does want to donate is to opt in under the current system. This belief is based on the idea that most of those opposed to organ transplantation have conspicuous religious or moral objections of which they themselves are very aware, and that as a result these people are unlikely to neglect to opt out of a system of PC, unlikely in the same way a Quaker is unlikely to forget to register as a conscientious objector to the draft, or as a Jehovah"s Witness is to forget to inform her physician of his opposition to blood transfusion. The wish to donate one"s organs, in contrast, is usually tied to religious and moral values that are relatively unremarkable, and so people who wish to donate are less likely to register their preference." Basically the majority of people want to donate, and this also avoids mistakes because people who don't want to donate will have strong reasons and thus remember those and they will make sure to opt out. This applies under util because people not being able to do what they want is obviously bad. Underview: No neg RVIs or NIBS: RVI"s destroy my ability to read theory because you can collapse in the NR; incentivize you to be abusive in the NC because you can just go for RVI or one dropped condition in the 2NR. You can win off truly abusive positions just by virtue of the last speech with new arguments - making 1AR theory a game over for me. Destroys education because you are incentivized to be abusive and then collapse the theory plus the RVI. I will have to win something with less time since I have to focus on multiple issues as well. All neg counterplans must have 2 solvency advocates - only way to differentiate between actual lit and fringe blogs. I can"t prepare for infinite NCs so at least ignore ones that are complete crap. Presume aff: a. You assume a statement is true if it sounds reasonable. b. Strat skew: I have to debate blind, but the neg can alter their strat since they speak second; he gets new arguments last and convince you last, advantages that influence judges. AFC: A. Interpretation: The neg may not contest the aff framework or read an alternate framework. B. Potential Violation: The neg violates if they contest my framework or read an alternative framework, or read an interp which allows them to do the above. C. Standards 1. Strat Skew: Because you can specifically write a case to beat my AC, there"s no way I can win both framework and contention level. Letting me choose the standard combats this skew. And, there"s an empirically proven skew in favor of the neg. This is key to fairness since if I don"t have time to make arguments I can"t debate. This is key to education, since if I run out of time, I"m forced to make blippy arguments that no one understands. 2. Depth over Breadth: It"s better to spend an entire debate round arguing about the implications of a theory than to be forced to barely understand multiple frameworks. This way we can spend more time discussing my framework, and better understand the arguments. This is key to fairness since without understanding arguments we can"t debate them. This is key to education since it ensures we truly understand arguments. 3. Real world education: If we don"t have to debate which framework is better, we can focus on the implications of the theory. This is better for real world education since it"s more useful to know what deontology entails for everyday decisions, then to simply know that it"s better than util. Theory Voters: 1. Fairness is a voter to ensure that the judge votes for the better debater not the better cheater. 2. Education is a voter because debate is educational and schools fund debate so that kids learn. (1) http://www.hks.harvard.edu... (2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (3) http://web.stanford.edu... (4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (5) http://www.researchgate.net...