The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A Just Society Ought to Presume Consent for Organ Procurement from the Deceased

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 65222
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




A loving wife and mother of 3, Sarah Wright was desperately ill with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) - a terminal lung disease. She walked 5 miles in order to raise awareness for the desperate need for organ donors, which had taken her 4 hours, 3 hours more than the other participants. At the end, she was fighting for breath, but would not give up. Towards the end of her life, the disease only got worse, all because she did not get the proper care need due to lack of organ donors. At around 2:45 pm during the first week of October, she passed away, giving three of her organs, her two kidneys and liver, to two woman who had been needing the kidneys for years, and a man who had chronic liver disease. She had saved three lives leaving this earth, even though she had needed an organ herself. For the people who had suffered the same consequences as Sarah did, I stand in affirmation of this debate's resolution, that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Black's Law Dictionary defines just as right; in accordance with law and justice. Presume also under Black's Law, is to assume before hand; to suppose true in the absence of proof. Limitations for the deceased: Ages newborn to 65, and must not have taken form of alcohol and/or any illegal drugs, including tobacco. Anyone who does not want to donate simply joins a national registry of those "opting out", and carry "opt out" cards.

My core value in this debate is justice, which under Black"s Law is the fair and proper administration of laws. Under this definition, what had happened to Sarah and, according to Michigan Law Review, happens to 18 Americans every day is not just. Simply put, it's not right. A person should not have to wait for a response as to whether or not they continue to live or not.

A just society will meet the reasonable health care needs of its residents. Under the definitions of presume and justice, justice would requires to limit human suffering, which is what the proposition is doing. According to the Baltimore Sun, Jay Bhatt, a former pres. of the American Medical Student Association says that "It is clear that we need a fundamental change to stop the human suffering we now have, and cut the health care costs that are hurting the economy. I believe we have reached a point in history at which is no longer just a political or economic issue; it is a justice issue" Couldn't have put it better myself.

Contention 1 - Presumed consent will help restore the right to health care. The liberty cost of presumed consent is minor compared to the justice demand for saving lives. In the same way that American citizens lose certain freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, during times of war, an individuals right"s, such as freedom of religion, is overshadowed by the common good that justice intends to protect. Larry Kramer, an AIDS activist, stated the following on the website" I would like to close with some words from Dr. John Fung, who saved my life: "Patients are dying and the public still does not understand that saying no to donation means someone will die. No one wants to be so blunt. No one wants to raise the American conscience to make people feel that it is their human obligation to pass along their body to the living when they die. This is a systematic deficiency in American culture, the idea that you are out only for yourself and have little or no obligation to society as a whole." He also explains that "in many foreign countries this extreme shortage does not exist. That is because these countries (including but not limited to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Singapore, and Spain) have what is called a Presumed Consent organ collection system. That means that every person in that country is deemed to be an organ donor unless s/he specifically opts out." Rocco Andriola, a former chairman of the New York Organ Donor Network. on USA today that "objections to a "presumption" are far outweighed by this: It is morally and ethically repugnant to allow so many to die each year when their deaths are avoidable." Short, sour, and to the point.

Contention 2 -Thousands of persons are now denied their right to receive health care. They are dying on waiting lists for organ donation. Sarah isn't the only one who waited. In the FIU Law review, Sara Naomi Rodriguez, a Juris doctor, admits that 113,555 people in this country right now are doing the exact same thing that Sarah did. Waiting "They are waiting for the phone call that will usher in a second chance at life. In a 2005 Gallup national survey, 95% of those surveyed said they "support or strongly support organ donation" Further, 78% of those surveyed said they "would be likely or very likely to have their organs donated after their death." That means more than 3 out of 4 people surveyed are literally willing to give their organs for those who are waiting for that second chance. That"s a majority of people right there. In the US govt, that is how most bills are passed. With this in mind, it would be logical that presumed consent would actually not just be ok, but rather make the majority of people satisfied, and of course at the same time help justice not just survive, but thrive.

In conclusion, presumed consent should not be seen as a loss of liberty, but rather an honorable cause that a person, yes, can choose to do or not. The Aff. position for this debate supports my core value, justice, and a just society will meet the reasonable health care needs of its residents. My proposition is that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased, and I ask for an Aff. ballot on this debate. Thank you.


Yes it is at a great regret that so many lives are lost each year to not having enough donors. But in cases of the other countries that you pointed out, only 4 (as of 2011) are infront of the US 1. spain 2. croatia 3.portugal 4. US.
another fact from 2014

There are currently 123,175 people waiting for lifesaving organ transplants in the U.S.
Of these, 101,170 await kidney transplants.
In 2013, 16,896 kidney transplants took place in the U.S. Of these, 11,163 kidney transplants came from deceased donors and 5,733 came from living donors.
2013 Living Donor Age Breakdown:

Ages 18-34: 29.8%
Ages 35-49: 40.9%
Ages 50-64: 27.2%
Age 65+: 2.1%

2013 Living Donor Gender Breakdown:

Male: 38.6%
Female: 61.4%

2013 Living Donor Ethnicity Breakdown:

White/Caucasian: 69.5%
Black: 11.1%
Hispanic: 13.9%
Asian: 3.9%
American Indian/Alaska Native: 0.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.3%
Multiracial: 0.9%

2013 Living donor relationship to recipient:

Parent to child: 477
Child to parent: 863
Identical twin: 10
Full sibling: 1,056
Half sibling: 58
Other relative: 422
Spouse or life partner: 690
Unrelated paired donation: 462
Unrelated anonymous donor: 177

Other Key Facts:

On average:
Nearly 3,000 new patients are added to the kidney waiting list each month.
12 people die each day while waiting for a life-saving kidney transplant
Every 14 minutes someone is added to the kidney transplant list
In 2013, 4,453 patients died while waiting for a kidney transplant.

to me this is interesting 101,179+ waiting for kidney transplants and a total of 123,175 needing transplant. Kidney transplant is the majority that is needed. i cant seem to find stats for other countries on what organ transplant they are waiting for. But also transplants at that magnitude may possibly be unlikely in other countries. Especially with america leading the way in diabetes and that affecting our kidney make it worthless as we get older which could indicate the overzealous amount of kidney transplant needed. Secondly the cost of a transplant Spain which the healthcare and the government foots majority of the bill on is undergoing a cost crisis in which they cut little over 9 billion for that purpose and will continually to cut funds due to lack of finance. US has some subsidies for living organ donors but nothing that will take care of us or the bills during recovery time. So majority of living donors are rejected due to lack of funds, savings, possibly going into debt, and etc.. which someone at the hospital will go over everything to see if financially you can donate. Where as in other countries the hospital/governement will help with the financial burden for saving someones life.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by rich123 3 years ago
sorry I just recently joined and just started the debate so on my part didn't totally understand everything. If I have another debate with you I will present and the debate will have a more of a solid ground since I understand it better now.
Posted by rich123 3 years ago
ill finish it here.
Other reason of being automatically opt-in oppose to volunteering to be a donor that is still somewhat incorrect. Even if we don't state we want to be an organ donor the family of the deceased will still be asked if the deceased will like to donate (i know it is a horrible time to ask). Mostly because it would go against freedom of choice and the constitution. So legally they will have to sort that out. Also if the financial burden of a living individual was lifted, the rate of donation will rise. Yes i am for it being a donation process since over half the country are volunteering to donate. It works just more is spent to accomodate people who are willing to donate but cant afford the time off on recovery.
Posted by rich123 3 years ago
shoot sorry i wasn't done hit submit without thinking i wasn't done yet
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
that has got to be the best instigating argument I've ever seen in a one-round debate, with the possible exception of my one-round debate on how one-round debates should not be allowed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite pro being stupid enough to start a 1 round debate it somehow worked when his opponent was even dumber and started to argue his position for him.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: *face palm* Con completely misses pro's arguments, provides no good counter-plans, and basically fails to snipe JZdawg. It was insanely hard anyways.