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

Framework:My opponent accepted to the rules I set forth, and those only, and cannot force any of his rules on me. This would be the same as me changing the rules in the middle of the debate. About LD... I was only referring to the structure of arguments, and that I would provide values and criterions. Hindsight reveals I should have explicitly pointed this out. However, imposing his drastic underview on me and defining PC as "SOFT" consent. Under the definition I provided, it doesn't rule out soft consent. Soft consent studies are topical and that cannot be changed by my opponent.His underview mentions things like: "The neg may not contest the aff framework or read an alternate framework." First of all, this is blatantly untrue. It is inherently part of LD debate to have varying frameworks, as each side has different values and criterions, or at the very least, different interpretations. You can see this concept demonstrated by the NSDA (formerly NFL). [1]Furthermore, these rules of voting apply specifically to LD debate, and I as I explained, this is only *similar* to an LD debate. Voting should be done like any other debate on DDO.Also: I win the Neg. framework already because liberty is obviously harmed. Controlling donations by presuming consent violates freedom from extraneous control. Egalitarianism is harmed because PC disadvantages miniority groups. But I also win the Aff. framework because opt-in systems are inherently more moral. By violating rights, morality is infringed. Also, morality is achieved by saving more lives. To save more lives, it requires more donations. As I have and will demonstrate, I'm winning donation rates. By this token, I uphold the Aff. framework better than my opponent. Also, if that doesn't convince you, take a look at his util or maximization of overall good card. If presuming consent *harms* more people (disadvantages to minority groups, infringing on autonomy and liberty) than it helps (net increase in donation rates), then you still vote neg. I've demonstrated this already, but will continue to do so.Even if you don't buy this, you prefer my framework because liberty is a fundamental right in just societies as well.C1:First of all, my opponent doesn't address medical experts being opposed to PC systems. He drops this argument. This contention flows to Neg., and I'll back it once more. "The Intensive Care Society... said that many specialists were worried that patients' families would no longer believe that doctors had their loved ones best interests at heart." [5] This was referring to a study by the ICS which found that around half of medical professionals were opposed to PC. However, my opponent does site donation rates, which also flow to my side, as I have and will demonstrate.My opponent says that whoever wins donation rates wins the contention. He makes no refutation to this, and only says it should be ignored. To reaffirm that my contention is valid and flows to the Neg., I'll provide more evidence."Changing the organ donation process in this country from opt-in... to opt-out, which presumes someone’s willingness to donate after death unless they explicitly object while alive, would not be likely to increase the donation rate in the United States" [2]An expert in the field, Dorry L. Segev explains how PC isn't a good option, "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." [3] Moreover, "there is no convincing evidence that PC would increase organ availability." [4] This insufficiency is supported by other sources as well. "There is also a lack of evidence that changing to PC would raise donor number." [6] Member of Parliament from Montgomeryshire Glyn Davies also agrees with this notion: "However, there is no firm evidence that a change to 'PC' will make any difference - and some evidence that it may do harm." [8] He also points out that Spain's system wasn't beneficial because of the policy itself. "What was particularly interesting about the Spanish experience, was that the level of donation did not change for ten years - until in 1989, the government made several key policy changes, which led to a gradual increase over time to the outstandingly good current performance of today. Nothing to do with PC." [8]As Glyn Davies mentioned, there is evidence that PC laws might have adverse or opposite effects. "People don't like any presumption. They like to make decisions themselves. PC (to donate) may have the opposite effect. It may put people off. Organ donation rates have increased year on year without changing the law. The difference has been organ donation co-ordination teams an dmore intensive treatment beds." [9] This shows PC potentially has the opposite effect.Another paper supports this idea: "The built-in constraint on the number of potentially transplantable posthumous kidneys also underscores why a “presumed-consent” law7 is unlikely to yield the huge windfall of transplantable kidneys that would be needed to solve our organ shortage.8 More is needed." [7]C2:My opponent discredits my source explaining that the US has a higher donation rates by quoting half the source. The other part explains that that fact suggests that other factors unrelated to the policy itself are what impacts donation rates. This idea is supported by other sources as well."Studies show that an important aspect of many high-donor countries is a culture where donation is the 'norm' and expectations that someone will donate are high throughout the community. Some scholars suggest that this is even more important than the PC model." [10]His comparison to studying is irrelevant because 1) they are totally different things, and more importantly 2) studying doesn't infringe rights like PC does.He says that his studies are more accurate because they show before and after. However, the specific study he cites (Abadie and Gay) actually demonstrates the Neg. position. It reads "most previous studies have pointed out that, on average, presumed consent countries do not produce significantly higher organ donation rates." [11] It's mention of alleviating organ donation problems is irrelevant as well because the article also admits that more study is needed to show this is true.However, the support for PC failure is quite strong. "It does not appear that by simply having presumed consent legislation on the books that donation rates will rise." [12] Also, there is little difference between countries that have PC and those that do not. "Despite the laws, the process of organ donation in those countries does not differ dramatically from the process in countries, such as the United States, that require explicit consent." [2]Other countries have demonstrated failure or lack of success as well. "Brazilian government implemented a presumed consent system in February 1997, only to abolish it one year later, citing widespread public fear and criticism." [13]Even the countries that have had "success" with the system find that the success is due to other factors. "Many scholars suggest that Spain’s public relations campaign and widespread knowledge and information about organ donation is the reason for their successful organ allocation program." [14]C3:My opponent tries to argue that the status quo protects autonomy less. This is blatantly false. Under the status quo, people have the condition and right to self-government (definition of autonomy [15]) is harmed by PRESUMING consent. I don't get the initial right to choose, so autonomy is harmed. This is still incorrect because autonomy refers to restricting rights, which the status quo doesn't do in the first place. This disproves his arguments against my C3, which actually don't pertain to the contention at all. C3 is about how PC violates liberty and egalitarianism by disadvantaging minority groups. He DROPS this argument and it flows to my side. I'll quickly address more specifically how minority groups are harmed.PC harms autonomy [16], freedom of religion [18] [19] [23], democratic principles [20], right to privacy [21], those who cannot speak English [22], the poor and dispossessed [24], those with less education [25], and minorities in general [17] [26], to name a few. The evidence supports this notion and should be weighted as such.In his rebuttals, he mentions that people will know to opt-out. However, this is not necessarily the case. In fact, Wales had vastly different results. "Four out of 10 people in Wales are unaware of changes to the organ donation system." [27]Since PC cannot save more lives, but does have ethical concerns, I win FW.Conclusion:As I have demonstrated, presumed consent systems would be very harmful, and they include both hard and soft consent, as my opponent agreed to my definition which could apply to both. Once again, it is unfair for my opponent to appoint stipulations after he has already agreed to the ones I have set in place prior to his acceptance.1. My opponent has dropped some of my arguments, including the basis of my C1 and C3. Those still stand strong and unrefuted.2. My opponent has forfeited his chance to attack these contentions, as I specifically mentioned in the rules in R1 that my opponent CANNOT argue in R3, but simply point out why he/she should win.3. I also mentioned in R1 that failure to comply to the rules and structure I set forth is an automatic loss. If my opponent does so, or argues in the last round, he/she AUTOMATICALLY loses.4. I have refuted each of my opponent's points and defended my own with LOGIC and EVIDENCE both.I have demonstrated that through both frameworks as well as logics, pragmatics, and morality in general, presumed consent is not just. For this reason, you have no option but to negate.Sources: http://pasted.co...