April PFD Topic

Before going into my construtive; I want to say that the round structure is non-negotiable at this point. Had this issue been protested prior to acceptance, I would have more than willing to compromise as to make this experiance as closely related to PFD debate as possible. --- Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. When looking at this resolution, there are a few things that come to mind that should be stated for clarification OBS_1: The resolution uses the word "Permit", This is very important because this will in fact scope the way this debate is debated. The resolution never states that the funding for the financial incentives would come from federal sources, it simply says to permit these incentives. What we are arguing here is whether or not funding should be permitted to be given as financial incentive. OBS_2: The resolution uses the word "encourage" which signifies that not only would organ donation be completely voluntary, but that there is a need for organ donation in our society. I will expand upon the need for donation and donation being voluntary later on as needed. With these things in perspective of the resolution, I will now present three independent arguments. If any one of them is true, then the resolution is true, and the vote must be to the Pro. Argument 1: There is a need for organ donors in our society- [1] ". .. Despite the number of transplants, there are still not enough donor organs to fill the needs of those who require them. As of October 19, 2005, more than 89,790 people were on the waiting list for a suitable donor organ. More than 12,700 people wait five or more years to get a matching organ. Experts with Donate Life, a government-sponsored educational organization, estimate 17 people die every day because they are unable to get a donor organ in time. " [1] . http://www.wsoctv.com... [2] "Each month, 1,000 people are added to the national organ transplant waiting list, which tops more than 75,000. Nearly half of the patients die waiting for a life-saving transplant. Although 89 percent of the U. S. population favors donation, only 1 in 4 consent - leaving the rate of donation around 5,000 a year, far below the demand. " [2]"When a body is donated for transplant more than 100 people can benefit. Not only are organs used, but bones and tissues are also valuable life-enhancing transplants. More than 600,000 people benefit each year from tissue transplants, while more than 45,000 have better vision each year because of corneal transplants. " [2] . http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu... Now if we where to give out financial incentives for donation whether it be from an individual, charity, or hospital; this number would most assuredly go up. The impact here, is that there would not be nearly as many deaths because of something so avoidable. Argument 2: Making organ donation taboo costs lives- There are many, many, MANY, rumors surrounding Organ donation; and almost all of them are false. The only reason I even bother to say "almost" is that I don't know all of the rumors about this process, [3] but we can look at some of the most common. Here are a few myths, and the truths behind them; Myth 1: "If I agree to donate my organs, the attending physician or emergency room staff won't try to save my life. They'll remove my organs as soon as possible to save somebody else" Truth 1: When in such a situation doctors bound not only by their Hippocratic oath, but common ethics to save your life; not someone else's Myth 2: "What if I'm not actually dead when they sign my death certificate? It'll be too late for me if they've taken my organs for transplantation. I might have otherwise recovered. " Truth 2: Physicians are not going to declare a person dead with-out first going through the proper procedures Myth 3: "I want or my loved one wants to have an open-casket funeral. That can't happen if his or her organs or tissues have been donated. " Truth 3: For an open casket funeral, the body is only seen up to the middle torso, so signs of organ, or tissue transplants aren't going to be visible; For cornea transplants, glass is inserted and the eyelids are sealed shut during the embalming process; and for bone transplants, metal rods are inserted wherever the bones are taken from to maintain form. There are many other common myths, but I think these prove my point just fine; because of the "he said, she said" nature of myth and rumor surrounding organ donation, millions of people die needlessly every year. However by offering financial incentives, and proper organ donation education to possible donors, we can not only dispel these nasty rumors; but again, we will save lives. [3] . http://www.articlesbase.com... Argument 3: Organs not donated, are wasted- [4]When a person dies, their body is treated and goes through a process known as "embalming". In this process, the body is completely drained of all it's blood, lymph, and other bodily fluids; is injected with a chemical known as "formaldehyde" or other preservative chemical to help the body from decomposing. Not only is the body not kept in it's natural state at the time burial, but this is a complete waste of perfectly good blood that may well have saved another person's life through a blood or plasma transfusion. After this, an incision is made in the lower abdomen, and the contents of the stomach, and intestines are removed; the organs are then aspirated, or dried out, and full strength embalming fluid is pumped into the organs and abdominal area. Again, the body is not kept in it's natural state; but the organs are decimated for the purpose of preservation, and otherwise life saving organs are destroyed. [4] . http://www.wisegeek.com... Now the impacts here, are not only is embalming mandatory prior to burial; but it is also rather expensive. By giving financial incentives to organ donors, the costs of funerals will be greatly lessened for families. However definitely an even larger impact is the saving of lives.