WODC: Organ Procurement and Just Societies

IntroductionBecause of the rules I will present my rebuttals for my opponent's second round only.But first I will address the framework.FrameworkMy opponents presents a framework in the second round.I will address it, point by point.P1: "Presumed consent" isn't the same as "no consent"I agree. It is not the same. They differ in the opportunity to ask for the rights (if one made the decision of not donating).But there is still a rights' problem.The rights of the people should not start when someone ask for them.My rights end when the rights of others start. So I have the right to make a fist until I reach the face of someone else, even if he doesn't ask me not to hit him.P2: An opt-out program will likely have higher rates of participation than an opt-in program; this is evidenced empirically.Here Pro claims that an opt-out program will likely be more effective than an opt-in program. This is a claim related to a comparison between opt-out and opt-in systems. But as it's part of the core of the discussion, I will challenge this idea.In his explanation, Pro talks about 3 countries: US, Germany and Austria and claims there is a correlation between presumed consent and a higher rate of participation.This chart shows the donors per million population in some countries that use one system or the other in 2002. [1][2] Notice how, even if the first 5 countries use the opt-out system, the last 6 in the chart also use that system. The correlation is not clear. Pro picked some countries that just happen to be successful with the system he is advocating.IF we show a chart with the countries that use the opt-out system only, we can see that there is no correlation between the behavior of its citizens and the system used in the country. And if we take the really successful case of Spain out of the chart, the differences are not significant enough. There is no such correlation, at least not with this "evidence". This is a chart from 2008 that presents the same problem. [3] This and the case of Brazil presented in the second round shows that there are other factors that can affect the rates.So where is the problem? The selection of countries Pro uses, which also happens in literature. Those advocating an opt-out system usually uses the same countries as example. Spain and Austria are heavily cited as successful examples of the system and claim that this correlation exist.So the success of each country can depend on other factors."The social process at stake here is a very complex one, and one should be prudent when generalising about the relevance of one variable that coexists with a myriad of others. One should be even more prudent when entering the risky waters of transnational comparison." [1]And it's true, this is not enough to invalidate the hypothesis of the correlation, but the examples presented by Pro are not compelling.But there is definitely a difference. In countries (like US) where the amount of people willing to donate is higher the amount of people that expressed this will, an opt-out system would increase the rate of donations, and mandatory choice would do it too.P3: Prefer utility as a means of weighing the round.I think it's fine to use an utilitarian system. I'm advocating for a mandatory choice system which is in great balance from a utilitarian framework and a rights/duty framework.RebuttalsC1: Organs Save LivesI think this should be included in the framework. This is a fact. If there were more organs available for donation, then more lives would be saved.C2: The Black MarketThen Pro uses the depression of the black market as an argument for opt-out system. This depression would be possible in countries where the rate of donations is high enough. Considering this and the fact that the debate is related to the comparison between an opt-out system and a mandatory choice system, it's important to note that this is not unique to the opt-out system.Mandatory choice would have the same advantage in countries where the amount of people willing to donate their organs are high enough.C3: The Rights of the Dead vs. The Rights of the LivingHere Pro explains a difference between the rights of the dead and the living and claims that because a dead person can't be hurt, it's fine to remove his organs and give them to a person that needs a donation.This seems to contradict the OOS that is supposed to give the right of choice and this was even a point for the framework presented by Pro.Because the difference between "presumed consent" and "no consent" is core to the discussion, we can conclude that the right of choice is really important for Pro and it's really important for a just society. It's important to preserve the wishes of the living after they die. Wishes that are relevant to their own body and their own rights.This is so important that the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin addresses this in its Article 17. [4]"Article 17 – Consent and authorisationOrgans or tissues shall not be removed from the body of a deceased person unless consent or authorisation required by law has been obtained.The removal shall not be carried out if the deceased person had objected to it. "An answer to both question can only be obtained using a mandatory choice system and not with an Opt-out system.So unless Pro is advocating for a "presumed consent" system that doesn't give you the option of opting out, this should not be an argument.And this is the same fact that makes mandatory choice, a better system.We can reach the same amount of donations that the OOS should get if everyone that it's not willing to donate would express this wish, but without risking the rights and wishes of the donors that didn't want to donate.Conclusion- Pro's arguments don't show a system that would be used by a just society. A just society would understand the importance of the real and explicit choice and not assume anything related to the rights and wishes of the (potential) donors.- Most of the advantages Pro used as arguments are as good as the mandatory choice advantages.- The difference lies in the fact that mandatory choice does take the rights and wishes in to account and ensures that the decision of each person is respected. In the case of OOS, this is not always the case.- The mandated choice system is better, on balance.Sources1. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...2. http://www.ont.es...3. http://www.ft.com...4. http://conventions.coe.int...