Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. " Because I agree with Winston Churchill, I must agree with the resolution: Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. For clarification for today"s round, I offer the following definitions as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary: Presume- to constitute reasonable evidence for supposing Consent- Agreement as to opinion or a course of action Procurement- the action of obtaining or procuring something. Deceased- No longer living; dead The value for today"s debate is morality. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, morality is defined as conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Morality is important for today"s debate since a truly just society should respect morality. Donating organs is a moral obligation, not a legal one. My criterion is social welfare. As defined by Investopedia, a social welfare system is a program that provides assistance to needy individuals and families. Since presuming consent provides assistance to needy individuals, this criterion best supports the value. Before going on to my contentions, I would like to make an observation. If presumed consent for organ procurement is put into place, it would take the form of an opt-out program where people are automatically organ donors unless they choose to "opt-out" or refuse to sign up as an organ donor. This would increase organ donation rates dramatically. My first contention is utilitarianism. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, utilitarianism is a philosophy or belief suggesting that an action is morally right if the majority of people benefit from it. A truly just society is a utilitarian one, because a just society would only truly work when it works for the good of many. According to the American Transplant Foundation, more than 122,344 people are on a waiting list for organ transplants. If we decide to presume consent for organ procurement, the organ donation rate will triple, according to a study by Stanford University. Countries currently presuming consent for organ procurement had a positive result: Austria"s donation rate rose by 400% in eight years, and countries like Belgium and Spain had their donation rates raised by 200%. This shows why presuming consent for organ procurement is one of the most effective ways to increase organ donation rates, therefore saving more lives. A society is only just when it provides care for the greatest number of people. Since presuming consent would save more lives, it is beneficial to more people. This makes a society just. My second contention is the fact that presumed consent is not a violation of freedom. Presuming consent for organ procurement still gives people the right to opt-out, thus respecting their freedom. If an individual feels he does not want to donate his organs, he has the right to choose not to donate his organs. Since we are not forcing people to sign up as an organ donor, we are respecting their fundamental rights. For a society to be just, they must respect human dignity and the freedom to choose. Therefore, presuming consent is morally justified. My third contention is that this system can prevent potential organ donors from being ignorant of organ donation. If a person is ignorant of organ donation or is too lazy to sign up as an organ donor, presuming consent automatically enrolls this individual as an organ donor. This effectively increases organ donation rate without violating the individual"s freedom to choose. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the main reason people aren"t signing up as an organ donor is because people are ignorant of the fact that we are lacking organs for transplants, therefore unable to save lives. In conclusion, a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased for the following reasons: First of all, it upholds utilitarianism, which makes a society truly just. Second, it is not a violation of freedom and finally, it can prevent potential organ donors from being ignorant of organ donation.