The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

Thanks for accepting my offer to debate. And yes, I am in Public Forum debate. So let's begin. "More than 6,000 patients die each year while on waiting lists. Demanding patience, when the price of delay is death, is no answer." Because my partner and I strongly agree with this statement by USA Today, we stand in affirmation to the following: Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. Contention 1: Financial incentives eliminate the black organ market. Georgia Tech Model of United Nations states "the gap between supply and demand for organ transplants is continually increasing. This lack of legally available organs has given way to black market organ trafficking. Desperate patients, unwilling to wait years on a waiting list, are willing to venture outside of the law to obtain the organs they need." Those desperate for organs don't always play by the rules. At UCLA Jagbir Gill, MD, and associates studied patients who had received transplants overseas, and found they had much worse results than patients who received transplants in this country. Screening of paid kidney donors was less thorough, with problems like hepatitis overlooked. Early organ rejection was twice as common and infections frequent. The only way to solve the problem of the illegal organ market is for there to be an increase in the amount of organs available. According to the St. Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy, "legalizing financial incentives for donation will eliminate black markets, create a safer organ supply, and help ease the shortage of viable organs." Contention 2: Financial incentives for organ donations are economically beneficial for the donor along with the government Sub-point A: The donor "The main reason we support reimbursement is that it's the right thing to do for the living donors," says Dolph Chianchiano Senior VP for Research at the National Kidney Foundation. "It would alleviate some concerns that potential living donors might have." Since some people actually end up losing money when they give an organ, one idea is to take away any financial obstacles that might hinder someone from making a living donation. Donors have the possibility of paying higher premiums from insurance companies, losing wages, and paying out-of-pocket expenses and follow-up care that is not currently accounted for. Donors would not lose monetarily for their altruism but at the same time not benefit financially. Sub-point B: The US government Currently, the United States spends money for Medicare on patients who are treated on dialysis and other medical treatments. Money could be saved if the patients stay decreases and the amount of transplants increase. The American Society for Artificial Internal Organs Journal found in 2000 "because kidney transplants are substantially cheaper than dialysis, and thus pays for itself, an increase in supply of organs automatically reduced the costs incurred by the government. For example, a four fold increase in the cadaveric organ donation rate would cost the government $400 million, which is a mere 5 percent of what the government currently spends." An increase in organ donations will subsequently cut at the federal budget, decreasing the amount that our government spends. Contention 3: Financial incentives help the Uninsured and Impoverished who need organ transplants. "In the United States, organs are still rationed to a significant extent based on one's ability to pay, giving the wealthy a decided advantage even under current law," states the American Law and Ethics Association in 2005. It goes on to state that "physicians, hospitals, and other transplant service providers are able to adjust prices upwards to take advantage of potential recipients' willingness to pay for life-saving transplants. ABC News says it best stating "patients who are uninsured or unable to pay are sometimes denied lifesaving treatment because hospitals can't afford to foot the bill for the surgery or the extensive recovery. ""Were organ commerce to succeed in bringing more organs to the market, this would allow for more research, which would inevitably lead to lower costs. As the supply of organs increases, the market price for organs will fall accordingly." (Monash University Law Review 2005) Contention 4: Financial Incentives will save lives. The major benefit that would come from increasing the organ supply is that there would be a significant reduction in the number of people suffering and dying in hospitals. "Most experts believe that existing donation rates could certainly be tripled" says the ASAIO Journal in 2000. The primary reason for allowing sales in organs is ‘to alleviate man's suffering and therein lies a fundamental contradiction in arguments that are purportedly based on humanitarian grounds." According to the Mayo Clinic, 19 people die each day due to the lack of organs. By affirming this resolution, lives will be saved which cannot be denied. Because the affirmative provides a solution that does the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, you must affirm this resolution.