The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage orga

I'm going to be rebutting my opponent's case. Contention 1: Financial incentives actually decrease donations. Although this point might seem to make sense, in actuality all my opponent has is ONE assumption made in 1992. As I state in my case, "Most experts believe that existing donation rates could certainly be tripled" according to the ASAIO Journal in 2000. My opponent's case relies on the assumption that many people would be appalled by financial incentives to the point where they wouldn't donate. Actually, most Americans would be further convinced to donate. The National Institutes of Health found, "Financial incentives would have made a difference in the donation decision for 54% of nondonors." Financial incentives do not kill altruism, they assist it. The disincentives of donating, a.k.a the hidden costs of donating, include follow up medical visits, lost time from work, and possible complications from the surgery. Many Americans would like to donate, but they cannot due to the inability to pay for these disincentives. All an affirmative ballot would do is reimburse these donors. Altruism would still be key as giving a part of yourself is still vitally important to the process. As our stats show, Americans see that financial incentives do not destroy altruism. Even if you do not buy this argument, my statistics show that an increase of organs would come and that they would save lives- the biggest showing of altruism. Even if some Americans are convinced to not donate, more people would donate which would save the most lives. My impact outweighs my opponent's. Contention 2. Organs cannot be treated as commodities. I completely agree. Treating organs and the human body as commodities is plain wrong. The problem with my opponent's argument is that financial incentives would not turn the body into a commodity. If the resolution stated, "Organ should be able to be bought and sold," I would be in negation. If we look to what I said in my previous rebuttal, thinking of financial incentives as a overt dirty wrong payment for the sale of an organ is naive and overly-pessimistic. All financial incentives would do is essentially reimburse people to take away the disincentives and pay them for putting his or her life at risk to save someone else's. What is wrong with that? The sale of organs is wrong. The reimbursement of organ donation is not. There must be a clear distinction present in the judge's mind. Also, Dr. Richard Demme's point is an argument against an "Organ Market" not financial incentives, therefore should not be considered as adequate evidence. Since financial incentives would not cause an open market as it would be completely regulated by the government, this evidence should be dropped. My opponent is attempting to stress "ethics" and "value to life," but my fourth point wins this point as saving lives is the ultimate preservation of life. Contention 3: Financial incentives exploit the poor. The problem with this point is that is blatantly underestimates the poor. The impoverished are completely conscious of their decisions and it would be their own choice. The agreed upon definition of a financial incentive by my opponent is a monetary benefit offered to consumers, employees and organizations to ENCOURAGE behavior or actions which otherwise would not take place. Encouragement and incentives are NOT coercion. Ultimately the decision comes to the donor. Overall the donation process takes usually over a month where the donor is completely briefed on all the possible consequences and details of the surgery and the surgery must have no coercion or it is illegal. To say that impoverished people are not conscious of their own decisions is blatantly insulting. Also, it helps the poor. Now the poor have a way to get money and get out of poverty while saving lives. Regardless, even if the judge is persuaded that financial incentives would overly encourage the poor, my opponent provides no substantial impact that outweighs any of mine. You have to see through all the pessimistic smoke and mirrors of my opponent who tries to paint a very dim picture of financial incentives. The program would not end up in a supposed "organ market" by any means, but rather would help the recipients who desperately need the organs. People are dying everyday and we need a solution. If you want to save lives, stop the black market, and save money, you must affirm. Thank you.