Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

:) Let the argumentation begin. Abraham Lincoln was once quoted in saying, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent. ” Presumed consent is a disputable issue. Taking organs from someone should not be something done without that person’s consent. Each individual should have the first and final say in the decision of donating vital organs, and with an opt-out presumed consent plan, this is not the case. Implicating an opt-in system would be an ideal solution. Presumed consent takes away these rights of the first and final decision. Please note: Negative Value Premise: The most important value is liberty. Accepting an opt-out presumed consent system for organ procurement from the deceased is a perfect example of the government stepping across their boundaries and threatening individual citizen liberty. We have the exemption of organ procurement as of now, but that right could be threatened if presumed consent is used. Negative Judging Criterion: whichever side promotes egalitarianism should win the debate. For purposes of clarification, the following term is defined. Egalitarianism: Having equal rights, regardless of social, economic, or other distinctions such as income, race, or religious or political beliefs. Justification for opposing the resolution can be seen in the following case. Please note: Con. 1: Medical experts are opposed to presumed consent. Medical professionals and doctors do not believe that presumed consent is a good idea. James Childress, Prof. Ethics, U. Virginia, Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action, 2006 “In 2005, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended that physicians not support a presumed-consent policy unless small, well-designed pilot studies established that it would be effective. The Council believes that unless data from these pilot studies ‘suggest a positive effect on donation, neither presumed consent nor mandated choice for deceased donation should be widely implemented. ’ At this point, the Council contends, it is unknown whether implementation of presumed consent (or of mandated choice) ‘would positively or negatively affect the number of organs transplanted. ’” The experts’ advice should not be taken lightly. If a professional believes it is a wrong idea, they probably have a good and well-supported reason behind it. It is imperative that we realize the detrimental significance of presumed consent. Con. 2: Presumed consent doesn’t mean more organs will be available. The simple fact of presumed consent and an opt-out system doesn’t mean that more organs will be donated. In fact, Jesse Schold & Dorry Segev, Nature Reviews Nephrology, June 2012 “Moreover, numerous examples exist of countries, such as the US, which do not have a presumed consent policy but have significantly higher donor rates than countries with presumed consent, suggesting that other processes or cultural factors may impact donation rates more strongly than policy alone. ” If presumed consent doesn’t actually help, there is no reason to force the society into it. Furthermore, minority groups are having their rights taken from them. This can be seen in: Con. 3: Presumed consent undermines liberty and egalitarianism. James Childress, Prof. Ethics, U. Virginia, Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action, 2006 “Another set of ethical concerns about policies of presumed consent focus on justice and fairness in the distribution of societal burdens, including the burden of decision making about the donation of organs from deceased individuals. More specifically, concerns have emerged that “some groups, such as those who do not speak English or cannot read and write, and those with limited or fluctuating mental capacity, have difficulty in expressing a refusal or understanding the system. ’” This reveals how presumed consent approaches to organ shortages disadvantage minority groups. These minority groups are inadvertently being governmentally controlled, thus undermining liberty in these presumed consent opt-out systems. It is for these reasons that I politely urge a negative ballot in today’s debate. With this in mind, please move with me to my opponent's case. My opponent begins by explaining that more people need donated organs than there are organs donated. While this is true, we must look towards alternatives to bring in further donations rather than the system defined in the resolution; one that harms individual autonomy and human dignity. Abena Richards, (J. D. ) NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Spring 2006. "The major downfall of the presumed consent system flows from its violation of ethical values three, four, and five of the Task Force list, i. e. , respecting individual autonomy, showing respect for the decedent and the wishes of the family. By removing an individual's organs without his or her permission, presumed consent not only violates the individual's autonomy, but it also interferes with the decedent's bodily integrity and is extremely disrespectful to the wishes of the family. As Mehlman states, The suffering that this would inflict on the family, the disempowering of the patient that would result from denying him an opportunity to control the disposition of his own body, and the distrust of health care providers that this would breed are so significant that they could outweigh any benefit that transplantation might provide. Indeed, they could undermine the organ donation system as a whole. "As I have shown in my case, the proposed resolution allows for abuse to both of those values. Moreover, as I have discussed in my case, egalitarian factors such as poverty are open to abuse, harming the lower end of the social spectrum. Sara Naomi Rodriguez, (J. D. ), FIU LAW REVIEW, Fall 2011. "Presumed consent organ donation laws are also problematic from a social justice perspective. Past experiences with presumed consent laws have shown that racial, cultural, and socioeconomic factors inevitably lead to their disparate impact on marginalized groups, such as the poor, uneducated, and minorities. "Furthermore, as shown previously, this resolution won't actually accelerate the pace of donated organs. David Orentlicher, (Prof. , Law Indiana U. School of Law), RUTGERS LAW REVIEW, Winter 2009. "Proponents of "presumed consent" to organ donation have always faced an uphill battle. In supporting a presumption that people want to donate their organs after death – and a policy of organ removal in the absence of an objection by decedents or their family – advocates push a policy that goes against the grain of American individualism and is more at home in countries with a stronger communitarian ethic. "Since the proposed policy isn't beneficial, we should look towards other ways of promoting organ donation to both assist individuals in need of organ donation, and not harm the dignity, autonomy, and wishes of the deceased individuals and their family. Besides this, presumed consent hasn't been more effective than the status quo, or our current system. Thomas Mone, (CEO, One Legacy – a Nonprofit Donor Network), NEW YORK TIMES, July 17, 2009. "There is no silver-bullet solution for the tragedy of long waits and deaths on the waiting list for kidneys. Mr. Rose proposes that we immediately change the system so that people would have to opt out of donating organs rather than opt in. In Spain, which Mr. Rose cites, and many of the 'presumed consent' countries, families are still asked about organ recovery and must give their consent. These practices essentially mirror what happens in the United States. Also, the American rate of donors per million population is better than in the 'presumed consent' countries, with the exception of Spain, largely due to its higher death rates. The mythology of 'presumed consent' is a distraction. We should be focusing on enabling individuals to register as donors at the Department of Motor Vehicles and ensuring that their choice to donate is honored by law and fulfilled. "This shows that Spain is the only recognized "beneficiary" with organ donation while using presumed consent, but we must realize the reasons behind their success with organ donation cannot be accredited to presumed consent. Diego Pol Longo, (J. D. ), SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMMERCE, Fall 2011. "One might, at first, think that Spain's success is the result of the adoption of a presumed consent based system. However, though under the Spanish law organ donation appears to be automatic due to the presumed consent system, there is a general understanding that doctors still have to ask the family. Thus, even in presumed consent countries, "the actual donors remain the family. " Since the medical teams need to obtain consent from the family of the deceased, "presumed consent is not the sole cause" of Spain's success. In fact, as seen, the United States has a higher DD-pmp rate than countries like France and Belgium, which are presumed consent countries. "The presumed consent system is obviously a very relaxed policy, and not as strict as the resolution proposes. As mentioned in the previous source from Thomas Mone, we also see success of organ donation in Spain because of higher death rates. This, in and of itself, has no correlation to presumed consent success. With all of this in mind, I would urge a vote in negation (con) in today's debate. Thanks to my opponent once again for not only accepting, but for providing a hasty response. Good luck on further rounds. :)