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

:) My opponent initially brings up an emotional appeal, trying to prove his side by showing statistics of suffering. While his statistics are relatively correct, it is essential to understand presumed consent, and the effects it will have on society. To effectively counter such an appeal, I must use evidence to support my stance in opposition. Just because people die doesn't mean we should make a hasty and errorous decision to attempt to solve the problem. In reality, presumed consent doesn't necessarily help those 17 people each day. While its attempt is to draw more donations to assist those individuals, the system can't facilitate organ donations on its own. The foremost reason behind presumed consent's fallibility is because of how it imposes on individual lives. First, it harms freedom of religion. Carrie Parsons O’Keeffe, (J. D. , U. Texas), TEXAS FORUM ON CIVIL LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS, Fall 2002. "Presumed consent to the removal of one's body tissues by the state deprives individuals of numerous rights. Freedom of religion is one of these fundamental rights, and its deprivation involves procedural due process considerations. Similarly, although the next-of-kin of a decedent do not possess full property rights over the body, they nonetheless are entitled to a quasi-property right under state law that grants rights to either donate or refuse to donate organs. "Secondly, it harms privacy. Curtis Harris, (Prof. , Law, Oklahoma City U. School of Law), ISSUES IN LAW & MEDICINE, Spr. 2001. "In America, nationalization of cadavers has never been seriously considered, and presumed consent is disfavored. Personal autonomy is strongly embedded in our laws and values, and any law that even appears to interfere with autonomy will face stiff opposition. Personal physical autonomy has been held to be a constitutional right in such cases as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, and any law proposing presumed consent would surely be challenged under these precedents. "Thirdly, presumed consent is inherently socialistic in nature and harms democratic principles. Maryellen Liddy, (J. D. Candidate), FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL, Feb. 2001 "Using John Stuart Mill's thesis of self-regarding actions, the smallpox vaccinations were permissible state interferences into liberty, because they were necessary to prevent a distinct harm to others. Specifically, during a smallpox epidemic, an unvaccinated person likely will spread a highly contagious virus, causing illness and death to others, unless the state acts to protect its citizens. Presumed consent organ donation, on the other hand, is not a preventative measure designed to ensure that the affected individual refrains from injuring others. Rather, presumed consent harvesting, like Gerald Dworkin's concept of impure paternalism, involves the state's affirmative removal of one person's body part to benefit some unknown other person. Although such altruism, when voluntary, is to be commended, it is certainly not required in a democratic society. Of course, Mill writes that a society that engages in such compulsion is not truly free. "All three of these points, each confirmed by credible sources, point to individual harm resulting from presumed consent. My opponent's second point is in regards to "borrowing" something from another person. This argument, however is lacking. The example he brings up is not applicable or relevant to the current proposal. Taking part of someone's body is vastly different than borrowing a phrase they frequently utilize. The next argument my opponent brings up concerns the efficiency of presumed consent. R03;To back up his stance, he provided evidence from the BMJ (British Medical Journal). The evidence he cited from the publication indubitably supports presumed consent. However, in the conclusion of the same journal, we find the reality. British Medical Journal: "Impact of presumed consent for organ donation on donation rates: a systematic review" 2009"It cannot be inferred from this that the introduction of presumed consent legislation per se will lead to an increase in organ donation rates. The availability of potential donors, the underpinning infrastructure for transplantation, wealth and investment in health care, and underlying public attitudes may all have a role. "Thus, the same and only credible source my opponent has cited falls without merit, as they admit to the fact that presumed consent cannot singularly increase organ donation rates. This is further proven by the following evidence. Sara Naomi Rodriguez, (J. D. ), FIU LAW REVIEW, Fall 2011, 186. Is presumed consent the answer to the organ shortage crisis in the United States? And even if it is, is it an answer that will be acceptable to the American people? Moreover, considering the inequities that have plagued presumed consent laws thus far, is it a just answer? As things stand right now, the answer to all of these questions is most likely no. The American people cherish their autonomy and privacy too much to view presumed consent laws as anything other than a direct affront to their personal liberty. Further, note how medical professionals agree. Dorry L. Segev (Ph. D, associate professor of surgery at the John Hopkins University School of Medicine) 2011"Opt-out is not the magic bullet; it will not be the magic answer we have been looking for. With opt-out, the perception becomes, We will take your organs unless you take the time to fill out a form. That’s a dangerous perception to have. We only want to use donated organs from people who intended to donate. ”It's repeatedly proven that presumed consent is not the solvency to increasing organ donation. The next argument my opponent brings is in regards to what we arleady know about the topic, specifically that presumed consent was implemented to be the solvency for lack of organ donation. The fallibility, however, to such a solution can be condensed into two primary points: the opt-out system itself, and secondly, the socialistic nature of presumed consent. AMERICAN MEDICAL NEWS, Sept. 17, 2012. "The opt-out policy also appears to change how people think about the morality of organ donation, said a study published Sept. 4 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Researchers surveyed more than 300 people in the U. S. and Europe and found that those who lived in opt-out countries believed that donating organs after death was not as ethically consequential. They ranked it on the heroism scale as somewhere between letting other people go ahead in line and volunteering to work with the poor. Respondents in opt-in countries like the U. S. , meanwhile, ranked organ donation after death as being on par with going on a hunger strike for a cause. "When citizens are presumed by the default option to be organ donors, organ donation is seen as something that one does unless some exceptional factor makes an individual particularly reluctant to participate," the study said. "In contrast, when citizens are presumed by the default option not to be organ donors, organ donation is seen as something noteworthy and elective and not something one simply does. "These individuals are not pleased with presumed consent, and the offending factor causes them to actually be displeased with organ donation as a whole. Essentially, presumed consent can actually lower organ donation rates. Secondly, citizens aren't particularly satisfactory with presumed consent because of its socialist concepts. Many feel it invites government tyranny and excessive power. Carrie Parsons O’Keeffe, (J. D. , U. Texas), TEXAS FORUM ON CIVIL LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS, Fall 2002. "Subjecting the disposition of the human body itself to the whims of the majority inflicts a most humiliating and invasive tyranny. Presumed consent offends state, national, and international values as they are stated in our federal Constitution, the Texas State Constitution and statutes, and international human rights standards. "Besides this, the consitutionality in the U. S. is skeptical, concerning human rights. Maryellen Liddy, (J. D. Candidate), FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL, Feb. 2001. "As it remains, presumed consent organ donation laws intrude upon constitutionally protected individual and family-based rights, allowing an increasingly dominant state to commandeer personal decisions and invade private bodies. By paternalistically "snatching bodies" according to its whims, the government has usurped people's autonomy in a wholesale disregard for their constitutional rights. Because organ donation decisions belong to the individual and the family, and not the state, presumed consent laws are both unethical and unconstitutional. "My opponent's last argument referred to lack of understanding. This is one of the most pertinent points. The presumed consent system doesn't work due to lack of explanation and the unethical practices.