WODC: Organ Procurement and Just Societies

I extend my thanks to both Larz and Arc for making this debate and tournament possible. At this point, I will present my case.FRAMEWORKP1: "Presumed consent" isn't the same as "no consent""Under a system of 'opting out' or 'presumed consent,' every person living in that country is deemed to have given their consent to organ donation unless they have specifically 'opted out' by recording in writing their unwillingness to give organs."" [1] Presumption implies that something is assumed until declared otherwise; thus, people are still free to opt-out of organ procurement in the Pro world.P2: An opt-out program will likely have higher rates of participation than an opt-in program; this is evidenced empirically."In the United States, 85 percent of Americans say they approve of organ donation, but only 28 percent give their consent to be donors by signing a donor card. The difference means that far more Americans die awaiting transplants. But psychologists Eric J. Johnson, a professor at Columbia University Business School, and Daniel Goldstein, formerly at Yahoo and now a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, found in a 2003 study that in many European countries, individuals are automatically organ donors unless they opt not to be--organ donation is the default choice. In most of these countries, fewer than 1 percent of citizens opt out."" [2] "For example, Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%." [3]CN1: The framework's first conclusion.We can sum up the overall gist of P1 and P3 very nicely with the following quote: "Here we have preserved freedom of choice but by altering the default options we have made a significant difference in the social outcomes." [4] An opt out program still allows for individuals to decline to participate (thus preserving freedom of choice) but it increases the number of participants in organ donation, thus helping those thousands of people desperately in need of an organ maintain a good quality of life, and, even more fundamentally, remain alive.P3: Prefer utility as a means of weighing the round.In a society, there are going to be people with competing moral views. Take for example the clash in the U.S. between Conservative Christians and Liberals, as epitomized in their disagreements over abortion, evolution being taught in schools, and contraceptive healthcare, etc. The government of this society must come to policy decisions on a range of such controversial issues, and must find a fair and legitimate way to make those calls. It would not be fair or impartial for a government to prefer one more view over the other (e.g. taking the Conservative Christian stance) because this sidelines and relegates a large segment of the population whose voices deserve to be heard. Policymakers also have an inherent duty to maximize the public interest as trustees of the state, and thus they cannot justify policy tradeoffs in any philosophical since. Therefore, we must default to a cost-benefit system as a means for government decision-making because it does not prioritize the moral values of any single group over any other, but rather it evaluates all groups equally. CN2: The framework's second conclusion.Because a government must operate from a utilitarian POV, it must assess what policies will have the best outcomes for society and implement them. Therefore, if I can show that an opt-out program is more utilitarian than and opt-in program (this is the dichotomy the resolution is--in effect--setting up) I have won the round.ARGUMENTSC1: Organs Save Lives"As of June 21, 2013, there are 118,617 people waiting for life-saving organ transplants in the U.S. Of these, 96,645 await kidney transplants. While views of organ donation are positive there is a large gap between the numbers of registered donors compared to those awaiting organ donations on a global level." [3] "Over 100,000 Americans are on the waiting list in need of an organ. This crisis within the United States is growing rapidly because on average there are only 30,000 transplants performed each year. More than 6,000 people die each year from lack of a donor organ, an average of 19 people a day. Between the years 1988 and 2006 the number of transplants doubled, but the number of patients waiting for an organ grew six times as large. It has been estimated that the number of organs donated would double if every person with suitable organs decided to donate." [3] About 4,000 people are added to waiting lists for organ each day, and most available organs come from deceased donors vice living ones--making the question of deceased organ extraction all the more critical. [5]Let's do some simple math. There are approximately 120,000 people in need of life-saving organs. Approximately 30,000 transplants occur annually. The number of organs donated could double if everyone with suitable organs participated; if we say that the number of donated organs roughly correlates with the number of transplants (though I'm reasonably sure more organs are donated than transplants occur each year), we could increase the number of transplants to 60,000. While certainly not precise, as transplants and donations are not the same things, this seems a fair estimate of the possible scope of the impact. This would mean that instead of saving 25% of those in need of organs, we could save 50%. Surely, that is the utilitarian thing to do--to save more, not fewer lives.C2: The Black MarketIn fact, an opt-out system would depress the black market trade in organs by making more organs available to the needy public. An opt-out system "would make a big difference to the number of organs available and reduce the demand on the black market. It will also reduce the exploitation of poor people who sell their organs and endanger their health because they are desperate for money.” [6] "In so far as those who donate organs are often impoverished and those who can afford black market organs are typically well-off, it would appear that there is an imbalance in the trade. In many cases, those in need of organs are put on waiting lists for legal organs for indeterminate lengths of time--many die while still on a waiting list...A consequence of the black market for organs has been a number of cases and suspected cases of organ theft, including murder for the purposes of organ theft." [3]Thus, there are real and tangible reasons to affirm today's resolution from a utilitarian standpoint. But, there are perhaps other reasons to vote Pro on this topic.C3: The Rights of the Dead vs. The Rights of the LivingUltimately, the end-goal of a right is to protect the interest(s) of a right-holder. If I have a right to bodily integrity, it is because I have a vested and justified interest in preserving my body's wellbeing. I can be harmed, and therefore I require protection against possible harms; rights function as those protections. Yet, a dead man cannot be harmed in any physical sense--in fact, it could be asserted that he cannot be harmed at all. What impact does it have on him if his organs are removed? Since he is dead, he no longer has an interest in his bodily integrity since his reason for that interest (a desire to stay alive and a desire to be healthy) are gone. Whereas, a living person still has an interest in their health and wellbeing the assure them a right to their health and wellbeing--a right recognized in such documents as the UDHR (article 25). [7] Therefore, the supposed rights of a deceased should not trump the rights of a living person, as the latters interest is far more important that the formers, and as the latter as a better claim to the organs from a rights POV than the former.Thus, we can also affirm the resolution from a rights-based perspective. However, this contention is ancillary to the foregoing arguments, as--of course--we are preferring a utilitarian weigh mechanism in this round.CN3: Overall Conclusion"A system of presumed consent for organ donation--where people have to opt out of donating their organs when they die--is the best way to tackle a growing waiting list for transplant." [6] An opt-out system not only retains freedom of choice, a basic right to which we are all entitled, but it does so in a way that maximizes a society's ability to save lives and reduce criminal activity. Sure, this is the goal of a just society--to protect people's rights to life and liberty as best as it can. Optimizing organ donating programs therefore requires that the system be an opt-out vice and opt-in, as the former comes with myriad benefits that the latter simply doesn't entail. It is the utilitarian and the just solution to a grave problem. With that, I urge a Pro ballot.SOURCES1 - http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk...2 - http://www.psychologicalscience.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://circleofinsight.wordpress.com...5 - http://www.webmd.com...6 - http://www.sciencedaily.com...7 - http://www.un.org...Thanks again to Larz for beginning this tournament and for Arc for what I am sure will be a fabulous debate. I now hand the proverbial reigns over to Con...