The Federal Government should permit the sale of human organs for transplantation

BOP:My opponent has dropped my observation out of the last round. Don’t let him bring this up next round as I will not have a chance to respond. My opponent must show that a market provides unique benefits that cannot happen otherwise because if the same benefits can happen without a market, there is no reason the federal government SHOULD change the law, given the unique harm of disease.Self-Ownership:1.People have a right to know that they will not be the recipients of diseased organs. My opponent seems to not even know how a market works. In a market, Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) would not end which means people would still be getting organs from a third party. The right to not get an organ that is diseased outweighs the right to insert a diseased organ into ones body. Plus, a person need not even make the decision since the shortage can be solved otherwise without the problem.2.The point is that it is an act of aggression to sell a diseased organ, whether intentional or unintentional. Thus, there is a legitimate state interest in banning for the purposes of TRANSPLANTATION. We can debate a general sale later on. 3.It does not follow that just because I control X that therefore X is a necessary precondition for my ability to engage in discourse. In the case of a kidney or liver, my arguing is not a warrant for these things being labeled as property, in itself, because I can function without these things (part of the liver can be removed).4. You did not answer my argument. Even if your argument works, it does not mean it provides desirable outcomes, in which case the federal government SHOULD NOT do it. You assume not-consequentialism, but insofar as my impacts outweigh yours, discourse ethics really does not matter. Its your burden to prove the ethical framework on which your argument relies, you did not, and therefore, cannot in the next round.Disease:Peoples right to take risks:1.There are other ways for people to get organs and my opponent just asserts this whereas I have offered alternatives.2.The point is that it is an absolutely unnecessary risk. Plus, its actually coercive since you are forcing someone to take that risk when they feel compelled to do so. Given other viable alternatives where people do not have these risks, its just not necessary.Statistics:1.It has not been eradicated. DROP: My source from 2002 directly states that the ‘window period’ (in a market people would exploit it) is the period that CANNOT be screened and it actually says likely never would. The source he indicts is from 1995!2.My opponent has provided NO evidence about disease. Thus, look to mine: “Overall, the data available continue to indicate that paid donor populations have higher frequencies of blood-borne infections than unpaid ones (see fig 2). Trend analysis does not indicate that the difference in risk between paid and unpaid donor populations has diminished over time (period of 36 years).” (Poel, 2002). THAT IS RECENT. Or how about the following: “The largest reductions in the incidence of transfusion- transmitted HCV infection have coincided with adoption of an all-volunteer donor system. In the USA, a more than threefold drop in the incidence of post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis was observed in one veterans’ hospital after the proportion of paid donor blood used for transfusions was reduced from 91% to 4%.” (Shepard, 2005)Punishment:He drops that it is an unnecessary risk, one that the victim must be subjected to. This point is rather meaningless.Status quo:Here he fails to provide one single piece of evidence for the claim that a market would work! He just asserts it! We also don’t have a market. So what? The point is that alternatives exist that would work, without the harms in his world. EXTEND: “He dropped the evidence that said there has been a 21% increase in the status quo since 2001, with 11% increases in 2004 alone. This shows solvency in the status quo is possible.” Prefer this. I have shown that the trend is positive on my end, he has given no evidence that a market would work. Moreover, Harvard says merely asking a question differently provides substantial gains.Deceased Donations:Again, con merely asserts a market would work. I have given evidence to the contrary in two cases: (1) Journal of Regulation says that when you give people incentives, they are more likely to donate alive and empirically these have decreased and (2) this is proven in Iran. The incentive to get money is only relevant when someone is alive! Note: deceased donations>living because you can donate several, instead of just one, organs when deadPRO CASEShortage:My opponent ONLY APPEALS to evidence from Iran to say a market would work. He does not even explain why this applies to the U.S. I have given several reasons to think otherwise:1.Harvard: 6% say people are more willing with a market, 9% less likely. He just asserts “obviously there is something wrong since it worked in Iran.” So what? These are U.S. respondents. This proves a market would NOT work in the U.S.2.Americans do not need money as much as Iranians. He makes dubious assumptions3.Extend foreigners argument: If foreigners come here, as they do now, to buy our organs the problem is not solved. He provides no evidence that says they will come here to donate (which is absurd). On the issue of saving a foreign life: we can do that without a market4. Extend the Titmus blood evidence: He says that maybe the compensation for blood is not a big incentive. People are more likely to want money for blood, which they regain, than for something they lose forever. The evidence absolutely applies since the point is that altruism is the driving motivator in donations, not money.5.Actually, he argues for my side! Yes, some will refuse and opt out of presumed consent! The shortage is 90,000 in need of an organ, which means only 0.003% of the U.S. population would have to donate! In a presumed consent system, this is guaranteed. In Spain, 142% increase in organs and Spain is certainly more applicable to the U.S. than Iran (lol).Black Market:Meaningless argument since the shortage can be solved without a market. Plus, no impact was shown in the status quo.Voters:Unnecessary Risks:1.35% of paid kidneys fail, 5% unpaid fail. He is just wrong, this is in the case of free markets, by definition. The impact is clear: HE ASSUMES THAT IF PEOPLE KNOW THE RISK OF (1) 35% FAILURE RATE AND (2) SIGNIFICANT DISEASE THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT THE ORGANS. All of the evidence says otherwise. 2.The window period evidence is recent and the diseases happen now (my evidence is from 2005 his was 1995). In fact, when hospitals eliminated paid blood from their banks (in 2005), their disease rates dropped significantly (see above). The window period HAS NOT BEEN SOLVED and a systemic analysis of 35 years I provided proves this, he provides no evidence (except from 1995). The disparity between hepatitis for paid and unpaid is 85% vs 0%. Lack of solvency1.No evidence that says market works IN THE U.S. I have given evidence from Harvard to think it would not (6% vs 9%) which he just asserts is “wrong”2.I have solvency outside of a market, both in the status quo and in alternatives. Presumed consent increases donations by 142%. He just makes assertions, I provide evidence. Moreover, in the status quo, the trend is increases with altruism, whereas the evidence says that less people would donate in a market.3. Spain outweighs Iran on comparisons since Iranians likely need money more than Americans and are therefore more willing to sell their body parts.