That we should pay people to donate blood

Overview: How to evaluate this debateMy opponent argues that this debate should be evaluated to the extent of the entire world. That's fine. However, as a judge you're weighing two hypothetical world's against each other. On one hand, my opponent advocates for a world in which blood providers pay people to donate. On the other hand, I advocate for a world in which donors are required to donate under law. The easiest way to evlaute the winner of this debate, is by examing the arguments for and against each world. I will delineate them subsequently. Autonomy vs. LifeThe initial mechanism for evaluating this round has to be a comparison of impacts. The impact calculus, in this case, comes down to Autonomy vs. Life. Thus far, there is no argument in this debate saying that life is not valuable, both my opponent and I agree that it is. However, I previously argued that autonomy is not nearly as valuable as life. My argument is quite intuitive I believe; autonomy is not a black and white issue. Autonomy happens in shades of grey, for instance you can lose some autonomy but still maintain more autonomy. Life on the other hand is quite a clear cut issue, either you have life or you don't. Life is also irreversible, that is to say, once you die you can no longer regain life. But once you lose autonomy, you can always regain autonomy. My opponent tries to avoid this stark contrast by arguing that life is a form of property, and therefor, by extension so is your blood. I'm unconcerned by this new twist in the autonomy arguements. Blood is indeed a form of your property but it is rapidly regenerable and so you as an individual face only a transient lose. Think about the comparison between blood as property and money as property. If someone steals your money, you do not regain the money, and so you must expend time and labor to replace the deficit. If someone steals your blood, your body continues to regenerate it (as it always does) and so you have to expend nothing. If money was like blood, nobody would care to have their money stolen. This makes the autonomy/blood property arguments quite inconsequential to this debate. Life is a far greater impact, and the possibility to save lives via requiring blood is a much more net beneficial than not.Autonomy LostOn autonomy lost I think my opponent has slightly misunderstood my intent. The argument I'm making is a simple one. I'm demonstrating that autonomy functions in shades of grey. In the United States, specifically, I cite many instances where autonomy is routinely missing. This of course is even more prevalent in many third world nations. My opponent tries to argue that there is a huge difference between instances of physical autonomy and instances of medical autonomy. To do so he examines the different impacts. But this is my point, autonomy is not intrinsically valuable, because it is always missing to some extent. In order to evlaute autonomy you must examine the real world impacts of depriving autonomy. Which is why life is a much more specific and greater impact than 'autonomy' could ever be. So in the context of this debate, what do these arguments mean? It means, that in order to evaluate my opponents case the critic should examine the impacts of lost autonomy. The fact that autonomy is lost is inconsequential because autonomy is lost and gained all the time. The outcomes of that loss or gain is what matters. More Or Less BloodLuckily I dont need to deal with this argument in order to win the debate. However, my opponents argument is not true. In the case of Uganda, blood donations were spontaneously required from the police to save numerous dying patients in a hospital. The situation was unique because Uganda has one of the highest rates of HIV world wide. They also have prevalent concerns about Syphilis, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C [1]. My opponent asserts that Uganda goes throug the red cross but this isn't true. Uganda blood transfusions work through the Ugandan Blood Transfussion Service (UBTS) which is a semi-autonomous organization. While the UBTS does work with the red cross in many instances, they are not the red cross, and the blood situation in Uganda is still unstable [1]. My plan is solvent on this front because it plants the red cross as firmly in control, they have a proven track record in this regard. My opponent's is not, he changes nothing about the current situation from a medical perspective. He just gives money. Furthermore, my opponent's article is not an instance of a global blood mandate from the government, it is an example of the police force in one city spontaneously requiring 30 officers to donate. My plan would involve the government mandating that all blood banks follow red cross procedures and would originate from a national evel. This would give people in Uganda, who are scared of unclean blood, much greater confidence which would increase doncations. The second instance my opopnent cited was the situation in Shanghai. However, this is not even remotely applicable to my case. My advocating that all citizens of all countries (excluding special cases) be mandated to donate blood. The situation in Shanghai was that only people affiliated with select universities and industrial facilities were mandated to give blood. After the mandate went into effect, blood received actually declined, and so my opponent concluded that mandates must decrease blood supply. That isn't true. Imagine for a moment the same situation happening in the United States. Right now we get donations from about 3% of the population. If the government, tomorrow, mandated that all government employees give blood what would the result be? Obviously those people would give blood. However, the 3% of the population that normally donates blood would not donate as much. Why? Because they perceive that the blood shortage is being solved by the government mandate. This is why partial mandates don't work! Either you have to mandate the entire population (excluding special cases) gives blood or not. If the government only mandates a subset, then the normal donor base will decline because they will perceive a lesser need. Thus, the Shanhai case does not apply to a global mandate. The Winning ArgumentThe debate comes down to impact calculus, if I can prove more lives are lost under my opponents advocacy then I win. I can do so. Consider my lone source from last round. My opponent asserts that screening methods are now sufficiently advanced to combat unclean blood. But that's not what the red cross, the premier blood organization in the world, has to say. They state that the most effective screening tool in their arsenal is donor self-screening. Even in the U.S., the most advanced blood screening society in the world, some HIV infected blood is not detected via advanced red cross chemical screening [2]. In third world countries, self admittance is therefor even more important. This is why my opponents plan kills a lot of people. In The United States giving people money to donate blood might not result in that many fatalities. Some people with transmittable diseases will likely sign up to donate blood for the money, and most of that blood will be caught. But in 3rd world countries (which my opponent demands I account for) the outcome is not as rosy. Especially in impoverished populations, the easy capacity to acquire capital will attract most all people with blood transmittable diseases. The inferior technology will be unable to compensate for this, and so many many people will die. However, my plan utterly solves this problem. I specify that exemptions will be made for people as per Red Cross recommendations. Without the profit motive, people with diseases will self-screen and report their blood malady. Meaning my plan saves thousands and potentially millions of lives as compared to my opponent's. Sources: 1. http://health.go.ug...2. http://aids.about.com...