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

Thanks Dennybug for accepting! I look forward to an interesting debate! Prelude Con has begun by attempting to shift the goalposts and shift the burden of proof to me. The main part of this resolution is “legalize.” The BOP, however, is shared so I must provide a case as to why organ sales should be legal, whilst he must provide reasons as to why they shouldn't be. We're discussing a "should" statement, and thus a normative resolution, meaning both of us bear equal burdens of proof. What is the sale of organs? The sale of organs, as pointed out by the definitions given in round one, is the act of selling a group of tissues (body parts) that perform a specific function or group of functions. Now, why is the sale of organs important? C1) Saves lives More than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list.[1] In fact, “An average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.”[2] The number of organs needed exceeds the number available for transplants. These 1000 people that die could have been on the waitlist for years, because of lack of organs, or the blood type needed etc. This number is also not completely accurate because it excludes the figures for patients denied organ transplants because of habits. If we were to allow the sale of organs, those willing to sell their organs would help save some, if not the majority of those 1000 patients! C2) Easier access to organs- available & affordable Paying for donors, would guarantee a greater supply. With a greater supply for the demand, prices can be lowered. Therefore, organs would be both more easily available and affordable. With an increase in supply, or a rightward/upward shift in the supply curve, prices, ceteris paribus, go down. “Since the number of kidneys available at a reasonable price would be far more than needed to close the gap between the demand and supply of kidneys, there would no longer be any significant waiting time to get a kidney transplant. The number of people on dialysis would decline dramatically, and deaths due to long waits for a transplant would essentially disappear.” [3] In Iran, the sale of organs is illegal. It is the only place in the world like this. The number of deaths resulting from a shortage of organs is significantly less, if not null. C5) Incentive to give up organs If people know they can get financial incentives for giving up their organs, they will be more likely to provide a supply. This may even help some people who are in need of finances. C6) Close the black market Levy Izhak Rosenbaum pled guilty in federal court to the crime of facilitating illegal kidney transplants. [4] “Jail is a way of protecting the public from dangerous people, other times it's used to set an example and create social standards and it is also used as a form of punishment….Jails should have a positive outcome for society and for the individual who has found themselves in a life of crime. Education, rehabilitation and social care should be compulsory for offenders and the jail system should be divided up into specialist groups for different types of offenders.”~ Leonard White[6] The question remains- Do these doctors and surgeons deserve to be in jail? Though committing a “crime,” what were the effects on their “victims?” How should they be reformed? Should they sit back and watch innocent people die, when they have the ability to save them? [Rosenbaum’s] lawyers argue that his law-breaking was benevolent: "The transplants were successful and the donors and recipients are now leading full and healthy lives."[5] Does this man then belong in jail? Should he be punished for saving these lives? “In Japan, for the right price, you can buy livers and kidneys harvested from executed Chinese prisoners. Three years ago in India, police broke up an organ ring that had taken as many as 500 kidneys from poor laborers. The World Health Organization estimates that the black market accounts for 20 percent of kidney transplants worldwide. Everywhere from Latin America to the former Soviet Republics, from the Philippines to South Africa, a huge network has emerged typified by threats, coercion, intimidation, extortion, and shoddy surgeries.” [7] Transplant surgeon Nadley Hakim at St. Mary's Hospital in London pointed out that "this [illegal Black Market] trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely [under proper supervision by surgeons], the donor will not suffer."[8] Also, innocent people who just want to help save lives won’t risk getting themselves thrown into jail. C7) Morality Keeping the sale of organs illegal would mean that someone who engages in consensual, open commerce would go to jail and thus is punished for a victimless crime, instead of resources being used for “real” crimes, like murder. “Organ scarcity continues to prevail, leading to inequitable therapeutic dispensation; escalating costs; trade; crime; and premature death.”[9] Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because ‘‘morality’’ does not allow them to have access to the organs. Therefore, it's immoral to legislate against the sale of organs. “The truly decent route would be to allow people to withhold or give their organs freely, especially upon death, even if in exchange for money. Thousands of lives would be saved. Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both, with horribly unfortunate consequences, just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety.”- Anthony Gregory[10] The Pro of lives being saved outweighs the con of people exchanging their organs just for money. The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is “an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" [the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property] is inherently illegitimate.”[11] The right of self-ownership is implied freedom of action in the absence of aggression. NAP therefore justifies the abolition of assault, fraud, pollution and most importantly, victimless crimes. In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores issues regarding children's rights in terms of self-ownership and contract. These include support for a woman's right to abortion, condemnation of parents showing aggression towards children, and opposition to the state forcing parents to care for children. ... He asserted that parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract in what Rothbard suggests will be a "flourishing free market in children". He believes that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces, while "superficially monstrous", will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing."[12] Likewise, our organs are our possessions and the property of the donors and as such, they should do with it what they wish, especially if it is for the cause of a “victimless crime.” These donors would give permission if they wish to sell their organs, not be forced. How can we deny that someone not give up their possessions? C8) The government is not legitimate to make anything illegal. Con needs to justify that the government has the right to make the sale of organs illegal. Everyone is entitled to “freedom of choice.” If someone chooses to do drugs, it’s their decision. If someone chooses to sell their organs, it’s their decision. Who is the government to stand in their way? Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General, and later governor, was believed by investigators to have paid up $80,000 for prostitutes over a period of several years. “Spitzer first drew the attention of federal investigators when his bank reported suspicious money transfers, which initially led investigators to believe that Spitzer may have been hiding bribe proceeds. The investigation of the governor led to the discovery of the prostitution ring after which he obviously resigned.”[13] [14] Prostitution was illegal at the time. If people like Elliot Spitzer are allowed to be heads of states and working in the government, how are they legitimate to make anything illegal? If my opponent wishes to say that this is not apparent for every government identity, then he must prove that they do what is best for the country all the time, and not partake in illegal activities. In the rural Prophetstown, Illinois, 16 teenagers were arrested on the 7th of June, 2014. Four of those teens were arrested for illegal consumption of alcohol by minors. [15] These adolescents now have these violations of the law on their permanent record, tarnishing their reputation and lessening their chances of getting into good professions, all because of the law stating what age alcohol consumption is allowed. With or without the law, adolescents are going to do it anyways, and they should if they want to. After all, it’s their choice what they wish to do to themselves. The government, therefore, by having this law, caused these teenagers their reputations and have ruined their lives. Con needs to prove that the government exists and that the pros of the actions they do outweigh the cons. Also, how can a government impose such a law, if morality is subjective? --- Sources: [1]- http://tinyurl.com... [2]- organdonor.gov [3]- http://tinyurl.com... [4]- http://tinyurl.com... [5,7,8,10]- http://tinyurl.com... [6]- http://tinyurl.com... [9]- http://tinyurl.com... [11]- http://tinyurl.com... [12]- http://tinyurl.com... [13]- http://tinyurl.com... [14]- Video http://www.youtube.com... [15]- http://tinyurl.com...