April PFD Topic

Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation. On many levels the Pro side of this resolution is is completely and utterly fallacious, and is something we should not look to; I hereby negate. When looking at this resolution we must look at the [1]National Organ Transplant act or (NOTA). This was a bill passed by congress in 1984 to establish the procedure for organ donation, as well as to encourage organ donation. one major thing entailed by this bill, was the rule explicitly forbidding citizens to sell their organs. Now this of course is a debate, and accordingly we will not just accept the Con as truth because a document says so; however I can and will be using this as a bit of framework to prove my point. [1] http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov... As for the definitions; 1. financial incentives: monetary compensation for organs. 2. Donor: a person who makes a gift of property 3. Vendor: a person who sells property 4. Organ: A necessary part of the human body required for homeostasis The means and times of these financial incentives are not specified in the resolution as grounds of debate, thus they will not be issues the need to be argued; what we are arguing is simply whether or not the U.S. Federal Government should permit these financial incentives. That said, I offer you three independent arguments; if the impacts I present outweigh the impacts of the Pro, the vote must go to the con. Argument 1: The united states' substantial debt and organ donation is costly This point is fairly obvious to any-one here in the U.S. who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to the past six years; we've been in several wars, supported relief funds to various countries such as Haiti, Japan, and Korea; and have been supporting social security to the elderly and disabled. as of [2] April 11th 2011, the US national debt clock reached $14,279,190,561,330.12. Factor in that the U.S. population is roughly 310,367,111 people, and we see that each citizen's share of the debt is $46,007.42. Along with this already substantial debt, [3]organ transplants cost colossal amounts of money; with the cheapest being the kidney at more than $200,000, and the more expensive transplants being the heart-lung, and intestines only transplants at more than $1,000,000. We can't afford to pay the debt we already owe, the government allowing this funding for organ transplant procedures is completely out of the question. We've even gotten to the point of a [4]Government Shutdown due to lack of funding. Now this is obviously a hot button issue, that will not have consensual agreement in congress. If the Republicans and Democrats couldn't even stop bickering over their own agendas long enough to support the needs of the general American population; what chance is there of funding being allotted for an already controversial issue that only affects a small portion of society? The fact is there is none; we must negate. [2] http://www.brillig.com... [3] http://www.transplantliving.org... [4] http://www.northescambia.com... Argument 2: Families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated [5] ultimately the families of the deceased make the final decision on whether or not they want their loved ones organs to be donated. So even if somebody wanted to be an organ donor, their family can simply say no; thus the government could be out thousands, even millions of dollars for these financial incentives and never even get the organs. Make a direct link between this and my prior argument regarding funding, and we can see that voting Pro in this debate is not a possibility. For a moment, let's say that some-how funding for these financial incentives has been found, in this case we must still refer back to the fact that families can opt out of their loved one's organs being donated; thus we could (and likely will) still have the negative impact of the government paying out these financial incentives and never get the organs. But it goes even deeper than that; let's say that by signing up to become an organ donor who would be receiving these financial incentives, you forfeit your families right to say no to having your organs donated upon your death. In this case the families will suffer and have their rights violated. When a person dies heir body becomes the property of their loved ones, and by taking away this body (i.e. the organs) the right to property is violated. Now in order to fully and completely grasp this idea, we must realize something first; [6] the dead do not have rights. So in order for these organs to be rightfully donated, they must be donated while the person is still alive; at this point the realm of he debate is not only about organ donation, but about euthanasia, artificial life, and other various medical practices. [5] http://www.americanheart.org... [6] http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com... Argument 3: Donor indicates that the person is not paid The main impact here, is that in the status quo there are already people who willingly choose to be organ donors, not for any kind of financial compensation; but because they see it as a noble cause and want to support it. However when we pay these people for their organs, they are no longer donors; but they are vendors. Organ donation is a noble act, when some-one decides they want to give their most dear and personal possessions; they only thing in this world that is undeniably theirs, for the sake of another, they should be allowed that dignity. However when we allot money for this charity, it is no longer a noble task; but a way to make a quick buck. In conclusion, you must vote Con in this round because the United States cannot afford this, families can opt out of organ donation, and to keep organ donation noble.