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

I replaced opt out with PC as well. First, FW. My opponent says that the instigator has the right to choose the rules, but in the round structure, rules are only in Neg first speech. I agreed to his rules and round structure and NOWHERE in the rules does it say Neg chooses FW. I agree to the rules of the debate, I'm just using legal LD techniques. When he says similar to an LD debate, now he's just picking and choosing which rules benefit him. I didn't troll, use a K, forfeit, and if at all, he's using semantics here- I'm just using things used in LD to make debate fair. Since I'm affirming, I ought to have the right to choose what I'm affirming, so I define PC as hard consent. I can drop AFC since there is no time skew, but let me explain why I'm winning FW. His FW says people should be free from extraneous control. But won't this let people murder others? Obviously that is an immoral action. Also, morality encompasses liberty because it's still immoral to infringe on others writes. But I'll be winning under his FW too. Now to the NC. His first contention says something that you can ignore because of one part of that quote: "unless small, well-designed pilot studies established that it would be effective." The quote says if PC doesn't increase donation rates, then it's bad. But if I win donation rates, then his contention drops. Since the whole Util debate will boil down to donation rates regardless, you can ignore this. If one of us wins donation rates, we're also winning this contention, so you can ignore it. Now his second contention is the more important one, as it is a rebuttal to my first contention. But his evidence is pointless. It just says the US has a high donation rate despite not using PC. Compare this to this scenario: The smartest kid in the class doesn't study and gets an A. Does that mean not studying is good? NO. PC is stil effective because my study had before and after scenarios. If the US were to implement PC, it would increase even more. And remember my study takes into account other rates affecting donation (the Abadie and Gay one certainly does). So what are you going to believe, one example or a meta-study that takes everything into account, before + after scenarios, and more? Clearly you are going to prefer my evidence, so I'm winning PC increases rates, so I'm saving lives and money. That is a clear win under Util, but let me just prove I'm winning under his FW as well as I refute his third contention. Now to the third contention. A huge flaw in his argument is the Squo actually protects autonomy LESS. Currently, the status quo is a system of opt-in: you need to sign documents in order to donate. PC is PC- you need to sign documents in order to NOT donate. With that in mind, let's consider his argument. The majority of people want to donate, so I respect the wishes of more people. A presumption to donate given statistics is the most likely way to respect the wishes of the dead " means I outweigh on probability " also non-unique to your autonomy violations since we make presumptions either way. Source 1: "Under any system whatever, we are forced to make some very general presumptions concerning the wishes of persons about the uses of their organs after their deaths. And under any system we must receive and implement autonomous expressions of preference that do not conform to the general presumption. That is the form of what we do now, but the present substance is problematic. We presume now for all persons that there was a will not to donate; (") The consequences of presuming in this pattern are often gravely unfortunate; familial distress is commonly caused by the mere request for consent, and the refusal of it often results in the loss of human lives that might otherwise have been saved. But in addition to its unfortunate results, the present system is wrong, wrong because it undermines in practice the very principle upon which it was supposed to have been built. As it must, it incorporates into law and practice a presumption about what people generally want to happen to the organs of their bodies after death, but the presumption thus incorporated is one now known to be inconsistent with the actual wishes of most persons, (...) As early as 1968, support in the United States for organ transplantation from cadavers was shown to be strong and widespread.8 By 1975, still an early date from the perspective of organ transplantation, a majority of those even in rural and relatively unsophisticated areas expressed positive support for organ transplantation. In regions more sophisticated, in Los Angeles County, for example, and in Houston, those supporting organ donation (even back in 1975) were more than three fourths of the whole. In Liverpool in 1979 that figure was 93%." The squo causes family dissent in some cases and respects the wishes less often, and it save fewer lives. There will be a system no matter what, so my opponent loses this point because more people want to donate than not donate. But here's proof that donation is favored by most. Source 2: "The system of PC actually preserves autonomy. 13 If individuals have not discussed their wishes regarding organ donation with their relatives prior to death, and are not on the organ donor register, then under the current system their wishes may not be fulfilled. Around 70% of the UK population are not on the organ donor register and around 40% of families refuse organ donation following a relative"s death, so based on the reports that 90% of the population support organ donation, this means that up to 30% of individuals who would have wished to donate their organs do not have their wishes granted. (") Under a system of PC, even if all of those who are against organ donation fail to PC, it would go against the wishes of 10% of the population at the most. " So it is clear more people want to donate than not, so I'm winning autonomy. His cards apply to the squo as well, and I showed I respect more people's wishes. And remember in my first speech I showed that people are very likely to remember to PC, because those reasons tend to be strong. AND consider that the extra donations will save lives - saving one alive person's life is more important than respecting the wishes of a dead person EVEN if you don't buy my turn. Now to his rebuttals. I showed liberty is part of morality but allows things like murder, so I win FW. Now to donation rates. Like I said this is also his first two contentions- whoever wins this whole rates thing wins all of these points. His source ten says, "they have shown that relatives always seem to play a certain role in the opting-out systems and that in practice these systems do not always work strictly as such." Since I defined PC as a HARD CONSENT MODEL where only the deceased's wishes matter, his study is nontopical. Ignore that source. Source 7 says that too: "What he and his colleagues learned was that even in the countries with PC, donation was still discussed with the potential donor"s family at the time of death, even though doctors were legally permitted to transplant those organs. " Ignore source 7 as well. Page 12 of source 8 details this very well. Speaking of source 8, it mentions Austria as a country that uses the system I advocate for. (3) "Consider Germany and Austria, which are very similar countries. Germany has an opt-in system and a 12% donor rate (the percent of people registered to donate), while Austria has an opt-out system and a 99% donor rate!" As for source 9 on Brazil, guess what the true reason was? (4) "In response to widespread public and medical disquiet, the legislation was amended to make consultation with the family mandatory." And one case where it fails isn"t sufficient to turn- see (5) for why meta studies, something only I quote, are best. Then he brings up source 11, but his quote is nowhere to be found. The real conclusion? "In turn, an increase in organ supply under a presumed consent system could lessen or lay to rest some of the controversies surrounding the different alternatives being used or proposed for the proper allocation of certain human organs in a market constrained by a lack of supply. (...) In fact, providing citizens with this opportunity to opt-out at any time prior to their deaths will serve to accommodate certain constitutional concerns regarding an individuals" substantive due process right to personal freedom,27 including those of a religious nature." This refutes his autonomy argument as well. Thanks for the source! he basically just quoted something that turns his whole case. I"ve shown how his studies are non-topical, why meta studies are the best, and my study has gone untouched- he just has alternate evidence that doesn"t take into account other factors and is non-topical. I also turned autonomy because most people want to donate, and he didn"t refute my evidence, which showed that people who don"t want to donate will remember to opt out. His first and second contentions can all be flowed under my first contention. I can win without FW bcause of that turn, but I proved liberty is worse than morality. Maybe if Brazil implements family consent, it will turn out badly, but a just government will not mess this up, plus as aff, I specify what I'm defending- and that was clearly stated as hard consent. If the aff is implemented, it will turn out well. Family consent being bad is not a reason to vote neg- Austria does the aff and they have insane donation rates and no backlash. Judge, everywhere I look on my flow I see aff. Hopefully you do too, and vote aff. Thanks. (1) http://carl-cohen.org... (2) http://cet.sagepub.com... (3) http://in-training.org... (4) http://www.ont.es... (5) http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk...