AAN-Tourney: This house would legalize the sale of organs.

Nice work Pro, I will begin to build my case shortly; before we begin I’d like to assert a few things. My case will be a considerable amount smaller than my opponents however I strongly believe that the validity of my arguments exceeds that of my opponents greatly. And I will demonstrate this in my next round where I refute her arguments. I ask that you carefully consider each of our contentions with logical reasoning and not by the size of them. Thank you. Here’s a list of organs which can be successfully transferred[1] -Eyes/Corneas -Lungs -Heart and Heart valves -Liver -Kidneys -Intestines -Pancreas -Femoral + Saphenous Veins -Skin -Bone -Tendons Contentions – C1”Exploits the poor” Organ harvesting is a serious exploitation of impoverished people, whose bodily organs become market commodities to prolong the lives of the wealthy few. With legalized and illegal organ selling the only people interested in selling kidneys will be poor people who are desperate for money. [2]Mohammed Saharul Islam, is a man in Bangladesh who was in an economical dilemma because he couldn’t pay back multiple microcredit loans. These collateral-free loans with an average size of $50, give villagers a chance to start small businesses such as chicken farms or food stands. Because of his dilemma and pressure from debt collectors, Islam sold one of his kidneys to escape his debt. Islam now suffers daily because of the procedure and is unable to perform physically strenuous tasks including his work. His family has to take care of him. So, in the long run he has become a financial liability to his family because of the extra care he requires from the procedure. With legalized organ selling, corporate companies will instantly begin to target rural areas and advertise organ selling as a quick way to get rich to impoverished people troubled by financial debts and other financial troubles. This claim can be supported by the video I’ve linked and the article in source 2. Furthermore, in Bangladesh a patriarchal society where arranged marriages often occur, husband’s will often encourage their wives to sell off organs such as kidneys or parts of a liver in order to help him pay off a financial debt he may have [2] With such a practice becoming legal, many impoverished families will encourage their children or spouses to also sell their organs so the rest of the family can benefit. Such a law along with the marketing, will make the poor who are unwilling to pawn parts of themselves will look selfish and inconsiderate. C2 “Priority > Money” For my next contention I’ll try and explain how through the passing of a law like this, the rich will get priorities over the needy thus making legal organ trafficking undoubtedly immoral. The way that the transplant candidate list works is that you’re examined to see how badly you need an organ transplant. The higher the score, the higher on the list you’ll be, simple and logical. If you get increasingly sick you’ll be moved up on the list. Thus maximizing the efficiency of distribution for available organs. However, with a law like this being passed organs will be auctioned off to the highest bidder thus prioritizing the rich over the needy. Allow me to paint a picture of the immorality a law like this would ensue. (This is not an actual circumstance nor is it an event which has actually taken place, this is merely to be used as a metaphor to illustrate my point) We have two patients who are in need of a lung transplant, one, a 18 year old boy who has been hospitalized due to his Bronchiectasis which developed during his childhood years. And two, an older gentlemen suffering from Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency. Which he contracted from many years of smoking. [5] Now, the 18 year old has a higher score on the waiting list, implying that under normal circumstances he will be the one to receive the organ. However, with a law like this the one who will get the lung will be the older gentleman because he is more financially capable of purchasing an organ. His lesser priority of the lung will have nothing to do with if he gets it or not. The only factor that will affect who gets the lung is who can pay more. This concept is highly immoral which puts materialistic wealth before the priority of needier people. With the organ donation system organs go to the neediest people instead of the wealthiest people. C3 “No one will donate anymore” My third and last contention is that with the implication of this law, the organ donation system will collapse and be completely replaced by the organ market system. It is logically justifiable to make the assumption that those willing to donate an organ will prefer to do so with compensation. For example, If I love two of my relatives equally and both of them need yard work done, so I can only help one. And one of them is willing to pay. It is only logical that I choose to go work for the one who will compensate me. This same principle can be applied to organ donation. You might be wondering why this is even a point? That it’s good people will get paid for their donations? This is not the case. When you evaluate how the distribution will work under a system like this it becomes clear that corporations buying organs will of course look for the maximum amount of profit they can and not consider the priority of sick people in need of transplants. In my previous contention I make a point how a system like this will become undoubtedly immoral putting people’s materialistic wealth before their needs. In a system like this it is only logical to assume that thousands of needier and more eligible sick people will die because organs are being bought by wealthier less needy people. https://www.youtube.com......... Sources: [1] http://www.donatelifeny.org......... [2] http://msutoday.msu.edu......... [3] http://www.medicinenet.com......... [4]http://www.davita.com.........'s-it-like-to-live-with-one-kidney?/e/4899 [5] http://www.emoryhealthcare.org.........;