WODC: Organ Procurement and Just Societies

Thanks again to Arc for this debate! He has confirmed in the comments that we will both pass on R5, so I will use this speech to defend my case and to present voting issues. PRO's CASEFrameworkP1. "Presumed Consent" is not the same as "No Consent"Con agrees that the terms are not the same, but claims that there is still a rights problem. I, naturally, disagree. If, under an opt-out system, one makes the choice to do not object, they have implicating chosen to allow the default setting to go forward--in a de facto sense, they have chosen to donate their organs by deciding not to do otherwise. Thus, the Pro world is entirely consensual. The problem Con poses, i. e. that rights should not start when one requests them, is thus not a problem at all, since I always had the right to choose. It is wrong to say that an opt-out system is forcing you to request the right to choose; it is forcing you to object or not object, just as Con's system is forcing you to agree or not agree. In either of our systems, an equal amount of choice is present. In mine, you can choose to say no to posthumous organ procurement or you can choose to do nothing and thus allow the default setting to be triggered (two choices. ) In Con's world, you can agree to postmortem organ procurement or refuse it (two choices). P2. Participation RatesFirstly, Con erroneously assumes that my sources are just talking about three countries. In fact, my first source in this section (P2) refers to "many European countries" not just Germany and Austria, and certainly not just the U. S. My source says, to repeat: "in many European countries, individuals are automatically organ donors unless they opt not to be--organ donation is the default choice. In most of these countries, fewer than 1 percent of citizens opt out. " [1] My second source here does specifically refer to Germany and Austria, and Con does not dispute the veracity of the data for those two states. Next, Con presents a series of charts, with which he argues that I am cherry-picking successes and that an opt-out doesn't actually increase rates of donation. I have three things to say here: (1) most of Con's data is 10 years old; this doesn't reflect implementation of these policies more recently, factoring in any new medical or policy advancements that may have been made in that time, (2) for Con's argument to matter, Con must show that his counterplan, MCS, has donations rates that are functionally the same or more than my system's--if Con can't do that, my system should still be preferred as the better of the two, and (3) my system does actually increase donation rates. Since (3) requires a bit more elucidation, allow me to elucidate. A study released just after Con's source No.1 was published writes, "This article analyzes the impact of presumed consent laws on donation rates. For this purpose, we construct a dataset on organ donation rates and potential factors affecting organ donation for 22 countries over a 10-year period. We find that while differences in other determinants of organ donation explain much of the variation in donation rates, after controlling for those determinants presumed consent legislation has a positive and sizeable effect on organ donation rates. We use the panel structure of our dataset to test and reject the hypothesis that unmeasured determinants of organ donation rates confound our empirical results. " [2] This is important because (a) Con's source suggests that confounding variable such as cultural practices are to account for discrepancies in donation rates--a claim this study outright rejects, and (b) this study find a positive correlation between an opt-out system and donation rates, bolstering my assertion. Another, more recent analysis (this is more recent than either of Con's) looked at "five studies comparing donation rates before and after the introduction of legislation for presumed consent (before and after studies); eight studies comparing donation rates in countries with and without presumed consent systems (between country comparisons); [and] 13 surveys of public and professional attitudes to presumed consent. " [3] It found that "The five before and after studies represented three countries: all reported an increase in donation rates after the introduction of presumed consent. .. In the four best quality between country comparisons, presumed consent 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. " [3]While this second study acknowledges that other factors play an important, if "unclear," role in organ donations rates, it concluded that "the available evidence suggests that presumed consent is associated with increased organ donation rates, even when other factors are accounted for. " [3]Thus, I submit that the weight of the evidence favors the fact that an opt-out program does indeed increase organ donations rates. Even the second study I just cited, which was skeptical of the opt-out system, agreed with that conclusion. The first study describes the impact of an opt-out system as "sizeable," and my initial source notes that less than 1% of people choose to actually opt-out; that would be a massive improvement over the status quo. So, the "social process" Con is concerned about, as well as other, possibly confounding variables, once controlled, do not seem to hinder the efficaciousness of an opt-out system. P3. UtilityCon agrees that utility ought to be our standard in this debate. This is CRUCIAL. Why is it so vital, you may be wondering? Many of Con's arguments are based on rights--yet, under a utilitarian system, we do what is the best interests of the majority, even if that requires some infringement of rights. If organ donation save lives, as Con agrees it does, and an opt-out system is the best way to maximize organ donation, then we must vote for the opt-out system. CN. 1 and CN. 2Insofar as my premises stand, so to do the conclusion I draw from them. ArgumentsC1. Organs save LivesCon agrees, so there is no contest here. The question now becomes: who saves lives best? C2. The Black MarketAgain, unless Con can show that the Mandatory system has donation rates that are the same or more than the Opt-Out system, Con cannot claim that the benefits of one are the same as the other. Con, in his previous speeches, has not provided any evidence that his system has better rates than mine; in fact, I showed that the opposite was true based on the evidence already presented in the debate. Thus, I am saving more lives and depressing the black market more than Con. I will repeat what I said, just to crystallize my point: "please note that an OOS system reduces organ shortfalls as well--and perhaps does so more effectively than MCS. According to sources presented in my case, under an OOS system, only about 1% of people refuse to have their organs procured once they die. A good exemplar of this statistic is Austria, 'which uses opt-out, [and] nearly everyone (99 percent) [donates]. ' Whereas, in the Illinois example, only 60% of its population are donors. So, we're comparing around 99% of people as donors to 60% of people as donors. Under a utilitarian calculus, we should prefer the former to the latter. " I also noted that "just 'two states that have mandated choice programs through departments of motor vehicles report relatively low numbers of pro-donation registrants compared with nondonors or undecided persons. '" There were also problems with my opponent's Brazil example and my counterexample of Texas should also be weighed in. [Please Consult my R3 for Sources and Full Arguments]C3. Rights: The Dead vs. The LivingThis contention functions as an "even if" argument. That is to say, that if Con were to somehow show that an OOS violated the supposed right to choice of the dead, it wouldn't matter, since the rights of the living ought to be preferred. Thus, there is no contradiction--OOS does give a right to choice, as Con has failed to show otherwise and as I have strenuously defended the notion that choice is present. The right to choice matters insofar as it is a harm--and a utilitarian calculus calls on us to minimize harms. Insofar as we can prevent death (also a harm) without incurring other harms (like violating the right to choice) and opt-out system is preferable. Cross-apply my arguments about consent here. Moreover, if the law does not require active consent, but does require tacit consent, e. g. an opt-out system, it still complies with the criteria provided by the treaty. The treaty does not require that a law require active consent, it merely says that if the law does so, then such consent must be procured beforehand. VOTING ISSUES 1. An Opt-Out system will likely increase Donation Rates more than a Mandatory Choice System1a. This mean an OOS will be better than an MCS in saving lives1b. This mean an OOS will be better than an MCS in depressing the black market2. An Opt-Out system preserves the right to choose3. The Mandatory Choice Counterplan has many unanswered logistical problems unique to it Conclusion: The opt-out system is the best of two worlds, both in terms of utilitarian calculations and in terms of the rights-based calculations. Whichever world you're looking at--even if choice is important--the Pro world wins out. Thank you, and please VOTE PRO! SOURCES1 - . http://www.psychologicalscience.org...2 - . http://www.hks.harvard.edu...3 - . http://www.bmj.com...Thanks again to Arc for a great debate and to Larz for the tourney.