resolved: a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased

I affirm the resolved : a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement of the deceased . my definitions for this round are observation 1 the resolution is talking about a just society not just a random society. Since we are talking about "a" just society not society"s implicating we only talk about one my value for today"s round is - life and my criterion is - minimizing death these two relate because the resolution allows organs be procured from the deceased which would then help someone in need of an organ transplant . according to organdonor.gov 2k14 "there are more than enough people waiting for an organ to fill a large football stadium twice over. about 18 people a day die while waiting for a organ transplant ." contention 1 - organs save lives Many people die every day when waiting on the organ transplant list. organ donor 2 (organdonor.org) During your visit to organdonor.gov someone may have been added to the waiting list. It happens every 10 minutes. Each day, an average of 79 people receive organ transplants. However, an average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs. as of september 2014, 121,272 people are waiting for organ transplants and this number only increases . With an average of 20 people dieing an day this number is declining as well as the population. the problem is that about 30,000 transplant happen a year because of organ shortages which means that if we can get organs from the deceased the number of transplants we can increase the number of organ transplants a year ultimately saving more lives . which can tie back to my value of saving lives because we can get people off the waiting list for organ donations and go on to other patients in need of a organ which would increase the lives saved from numerous diseases , but we can prevent this by presuming that the diseased ahs give us consent to procure his organs . contention 2 : Doctors and nurses have obligations to take care of their patients. The answer is nothing when a person dies he has no use of his organs. when a person is dead his heart stops pumping blood and he has no use for his heart anymore . when an person is dead he is dead doing anything you do to him will not affect him anyway. but if a living person is dying of a disease that affects a organ and the only way to save him is to transplant a organ into him . but what if they do not have a organ to transplant . in order to save his life they must take from the deceased . hippocrates (hippocrates of cos , ancient greek physician wrote the hippocratic oath) 1960 version Make the care of your patient your first concern. Protect and promote the health of patients and the public. Provide a good standard of practice and care: Keep your professional knowledge and skills up to date. Recognise and work within the limits of your competence. Work with colleagues in the ways that best serve patients' interests. Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity: Treat patients politely and considerately. Respect patients' right to confidentiality. this basically states that the doctor or nurse must do whatever in their power to save a life even if that is taking organs from an deceased person to save ones life. contention 3 Veil of ignorance says we ought to take care for the least well-off. any day at any time you could wake up with an disease that would leave you on the waiting list for a organ now what if they didn't have a organ to give to you . wouldn't you want the doctor to do whatever to save your live . and naturally want to get a organ from an deceased person to save your life because lets be honest what do deceased humans need organs for . this way of thinking is called the veil of ignorance. John Rawls (John Rawls , American philosopher) 1921 In his book, A Theory Of Justice, Rawls asks us to imagine a fantastic scene: a group of people are gathered to plan their own future society, hammering out the details of what will basically become a Social Contract. Rawls calls this the "Original Position." In the Original Position, the future citizens do not yet know what part they will play in their upcoming society. They must design their society behind what Rawls calls the Veil Of Ignorance. "No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." this is basically the idea that anyone can wake up one day and be someone they are not . an rich man can be poor and an poor man can be rich. the same as an healthy man can become sick at any given moment in time. so this theory is basically forgetting who you are and acting as if you were the one in need . in conclusion i affirm todays resolution . resolved a just society ought to presume consent for the following three reasons.