The Instigator
Lickdafoot
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Andromeda_Z
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sale of Human Organs

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 3 votes the winner is...
Lickdafoot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,776 times Debate No: 18619
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Lickdafoot

Pro

This is for DetectableNinja's debate tournament. The resolution: The sale of human organs should be legalized.

Andromeda, I'm hoping to set the opening now and have my first round up by friday so that you can get yours over the weekend. Please let me know in the comments if there is anything about the way I set the debate up that you would like to change. I look forward to debating you for a second time and wish you luck in the tournament!


Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions & Clarifications
Round 2: Opening Statements & Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Final rebuttals & Closing Statements


These definitions are from the Merriam- Webster Medical dictionary.

human: a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo; of, relating to, or characteristic of humans body [1]

organ: a differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues and performing some specific function in an organism [2]


1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.http://dictionary.reference.com...
Andromeda_Z

Con

I think the definitions you provided are accurate, and I don't have any things I need to define, so thanks for the debate and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Lickdafoot

Pro

I will attempt to show to you that the sale of human organs is beneficial to the well being of society through its medical advances.

Sale of human organs is more effective for saving lives than the donation act

A. Waiting List

In 2009, there were 14,360 organ donors, and 105,567 people on the waiting list. The gap (between donors and people on waiting list) is steadily increasing. [1] People can spend years waiting to get a matching donor, and many die still waiting. The sale of organs will give people an incentive to give their body parts, and will increase the chance of someone being able to get a match before their time is up.


Instead of signing up for organ donation upon death, a person could agree to selling organs upon death, and the money would go to their beneficiary. Also, kidneys and livers, two of the most commonly needed organ transplants, can be taken out without detriment to the person's health. With an incentive to make money off of these parts, more parts will become available. More people will have the ability to get their transplant. It makes sense that a person should be able to pay money to get their needed organ and save their life.

B. Donors don't benefit from their risky gift

Donors give their organs for free; but doctors make money off of the organ. In fact, the surgeon, the nurse, and the pharmacist make money off of the transplant. It only makes sense that the most pivotal person in the transplant, the donor, gets something for his efforts as well. The legalization of the organ trade will give the person what they deserve for risking their own body parts.

Black Market

Because of supply and demand, human organs are a huge seller on the black market. People ransack through dead corpses and steal their body parts, and sometimes even kill to get a part. According to insurance companies and hospitals, a lung alone will go for over $100,000.00. [2] Human parts sold through the black market are not always sanitary, and the background of the organ is unknown, which is required for a successful transplant.Black Market organs are extremely risky, but those on the brinks of death are desperate to have a transplant. Once the sale of human organs becomes legalized, the need for illegal organ sale will decrease exponentially, because people would opt for the safer surgery. This will save lives.

Fossilized Body Parts

Fossilized body parts are pivotal in science research to determine our history and ancestry. This type of research not only has medical benefits, but helps mankind as we come closer to finding the truth of where we came from. The archaeologists, palaeontologists, and other researchers of our ancestors are generally underpaid. The Nationwide Science Foundation concluded that professionals in the natural sciences make less money than most other professions such as teaching, administrative, etc. [4] So who is to stop these researchers for making more money off of their hard work? The sale of the body parts to other scientists, museums, etc. would help these people make a decent living off of their craft.


Custom- Made body parts


Now, this picture might creep you out at first, but it is actually a good thing. Scientists Bob Langer and Joseph Vacanti have developed a process of cultivating tissues to grow into human body parts. [3] These are in fact actual human organs (we can look at the definition to see that it qualifies, and also we know that a person born from artificial insemination is still a human.) The body part is grown, cut off of the rodent, and the rodent remains healthy afterward. Research is still being done on this, but we can see a clear road ahead towards manufacturing these body parts to use on people in need of them. The scientists who spent such time and effort on this advancement should get paid for their products.




Conclusion

We can see instances where the sale of human body organs is beneficial to us. Legalizing the sale of human organs allows them to be used in surgery and research to save lives, and live more comfortably.



1. http://www.organdonor.gov...
2. http://editinternational.com...
3. http://www.pbs.org...
4. http://www.nature.com...

Andromeda_Z

Con

A. The Waiting List

"Instead of signing up for organ donation upon death, a person could agree to selling organs upon death, and the money would go to their beneficiary."
How exactly is this an incentive? The person knows they will never see the money. There is no tangible reward here, and intangible rewards simply aren't as compelling.

"Also, kidneys and livers, two of the most commonly needed organ transplants, can be taken out without detriment to the person's health."
In most cases, yes. However, every surgery involves risk. Naturally, people will want more money to make the risk worthwhile. Not everyone can afford this money, which means poor people will not be any more likely to have their needed organs than they do now. This only benefits those with enough money to pay for the organs. I'm all for helping the rich, but I think it is imperative that we help the poor. The sale of organs actually hurts them, because no one will donate an organ for free why could get paid for it. Because of the risk and recovery time involved, only people with a significant amount of money will be able to afford the price the organ sellers are asking.

Donors don't benefit from their gift

The medical professionals involved in the transplant have training the donor does not. Think of it this way, everyone has organs. Few people have medical training. It is essential that these people with medical training are involved in the transplant process, so it is important to promise payment to them to make it worthwhile to attend medical school. No special raining is required to have a spare kidney you could donate, any random person can do that.

Instead of the promise of payment to entice potential donors, I suggest an ad campaign similar to what McDonald's uses. People go to McDonald's knowing that it will harm them (unlike donating an organ) and knowing that they will lose money (rather than make money, as you suggest).

Black Market

The black market sales are actually a good thing. The $100,000 for a lung goes to feed the family of someone who likely doesn't have any other marketable skill, which is why they are selling organs on the black market anyway. Legalizing the sale of human organs would put these people out of a job.

You also mention that people take the organs of corpses and kill people for their organs. Murder is already illegal, so the solution to that would be to penalize the people that are killing for organs. I don't see the harm in someone taking the organs of a corpse. No one is using it, and if someone is willing to pay for that, then that is their mistake.

Fossilized Body Parts

This is not relevant to the debate, as the fossilization process replaces the tissue with minerals, meaning these do not fit the definition of organs.

Custom Body Parts

These do not fit the definition of human organs, as the definition of human is "a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo; of, relating to, or characteristic of humans body". These are not fro bipedal primates of the genus homo. They also are not characteristic of the human body because they are growing on rodents.

My Argument

The sale of human organs has no benefit to society as a whole. Because they know they can make much-needed money off of them, poor people will sell their organs to people who n afford them (the rich). The people that would ordinarily donate their organs would not because they can now get paid for them. In effect, rich people get healthier while the poor die off from organ failure.
Debate Round No. 2
Lickdafoot

Pro

I thank my opponent for response.

1. The Waiting List


My opponent wonders why someone would want to be concerned about money after death. Millions upon millions of people over the world have health insurance simply for this reason. People are concerned on whether their loved ones can maintain financial stability after they die; and health insurance can become extremely costly, as much as thousands per year with universal coverage. [1] With one knowing that their body parts can be used to pay for this, a huge burden is lifted.

The point was brought up that people will want “more money” to give their organs. This will likely be true for some, and it is a great thing for people who are willing to pay that money. Organ transaction helps out both people. We also know that people donate their organs now, so donation organizations can still remain for those who cannot afford to barter for their organ. We already have many equal opportunity laws established in our governmental system, [2] so we know that proper regulation can help those who are in need.

2. Donors don’t benefit from their gift

Surgeons make money because they are trained to do a surgery. It logically follows that the person risking their life to give that organ should benefit from it too. Points extended.

3. Black Market

“The $100,000 for a lung goes to feed the family of someone who likely doesn't have any other marketable skill”

This quote by my opponent concedes the fact that making profit off of one’s organs is acceptable.

It is also mentioned that people who murder to sell organs should be penalized in the justice system. While this is a small deterrent from the act, I have already established a much more effective cause to prevent these murders before they happen, not afterward. If people can buy organs legitimately, they won’t be desperate to buy them from unknown sources. The demand drops, and the organ stealing drops.

It is also conceded by my opponent that sale of corpse organs is not harmful. Because the majority of organs come from corpses, sale of human organs is not harmful.

4. Okay, I concede that point. The rest still stand.

5. Custom body parts

These organs do, in fact, fit the definition of “human organ” that we have established. A human “of, relating to, or characteristic of humans body.” A organ “differentiated structure (as a heart or kidney) consisting of cells and tissues”

The link 3 in the last round provided shows that these parts are made by synthesize tissue encoded into the rodent. When the organ is due to be sold, the organ will be cut off from the rodent. The organ has all the main characteristics of a homo genus organ structure; making it fit the definition. The point still remains that these scientists should make a profit off of their product.


C1- Organ sales have no benefit to society

We see that organ sales benefit society through saving lives. It not only gives a chance for anyone to have the organ they need, but it decreases the theft of organs as well. They can help everyone from the donor, to the scientist, to the person in need of an organ.

Just because the sale of something is legalized does not mean that poor people will have no chance of getting their organs. We already know that there are tons of organizations out there willing to help those who need medical care, homes, cars, etc. Everything from cats to cars are sold; and they are also donated to those who need them. Programs can be set help to help one pay for a needed organ or get one for free. The sale of organs will not hinder this process, but help it become more accessible to everyone in society.



1. http://money.cnn.com....
2. http://eop.ua.edu...
Andromeda_Z

Con

The Waiting List

I think you're confusing health insurance with life insurance. Health insurance companies pay the doctors when you need medical treatment, life insurance companies pay whoever you chose as your beneficiary when you die. This isn't an argument, just clarifying.

"People are concerned on whether their loved ones can maintain financial stability after they die; and health insurance can become extremely costly, as much as thousands per year with universal coverage. [1] With one knowing that their body parts can be used to pay for this, a huge burden is lifted."
Not even life insurance can insure financial security after the death of a family member. Why would the sale of organs do so? The going rate of an organ would go down after legalization of organ sale because there is less risk involved. That means that there won't be nearly as much money to take care of expenses as you assume. It may not be enough, in which case this isn't much of a benefit at all and it may not be worth it. To some families, it is very important not to alter the body of the dead person.

"We also know that people donate their organs now, so donation organizations can still remain for those who cannot afford to barter for their organ."
Lets say someone is going to give up one of their organs. There is the option of donation and the option of getting paid a lot of money. Which do you think is the more likely choice? The organ donation organizations aren't going to be able to stay open long.

Donors don't benefit from their gift

My point was that surgeons have special training. Anyone can grow organs. While people with extra organs are very important, it is the surgeons who are scarce. The surgeons are the ones who should be recruited through the promise of payment.

Black Market

I'm going to have to concede this point. Lickdafoot 1, Andro 0.

Fossilized Body Parts

Okay, so now we both have a concession.

Custom Body Parts

I concede that these are human organs, but not that they should be sold. The scientists can still be paid for developing the technology necessary to do this without selling the organs themselves. This actually provides a viable alternative to organ sales, in that the technology is already present. The rodents have no use for human money, so there is no reason to pay them for the organs. Rather than paying people for organs, we can pay scientists to grow organs on rodents, which will then be donated to people that need organs.

Organ sales have no benefit to society

"It not only gives a chance for anyone to have the organ they need"
The sale of organs allows those with the ability to pay for them the chance to own them. Anyone who is incapable of doing so is unlikely to receive the necessary organs.

"but it decreases the theft of organs as well."
People still steal things that are sold. Anything from televisions to chocolate bars is stolen, selling these things does little to prevent that. How would the sale of organs be any different?

"Just because the sale of something is legalized does not mean that poor people will have no chance of getting their organs. We already know that there are tons of organizations out there willing to help those who need medical care, homes, cars, etc. Everything from cats to cars are sold; and they are also donated to those who need them. Programs can be set help to help one pay for a needed organ or get one for free."
That does help some people, but there are still people who don't have these things that charity is expected to provide for them. While it can pick up some of the slack, charity can't be depended on to do what the market can't.
Debate Round No. 3
Lickdafoot

Pro

The Waiting List

Two main points were brought up here. The first was that the price of the organs will decrease, so it won't matter much anyway. This isn't necessarily the case. Take into account how many people have religious reasons not to donate their organs. The demand will remain high because donating organs is risky to an alive person and might conflict with religious beliefs of a deceased person. Remember, a lung alone is worth about $ 100,000. Even if the price decreases by 70%, that will still be $30,000. And that is just one body part out of many. That lifts a huge burden off someone on the brinks of death.

The second point was that people will always opt to sell their organ rather than to donate. We cannot say that this will be true for all cases, especially when it involves a matching family member, but we can accept that many people will opt for the sale. This is okay, there can be organizations made to help people pay for these organs.


Donors don't benefit from their gift


It is true that surgeons should be paid well because of their training. Should this deflect from what the donors are doing; putting their lives at risk to give someone else the chance to live? Why should the donors get the shaft? People get paid for spreading life through giving their sperm and eggs, so why should organs be treated differently?


Custom Body Parts

This is a viable solution to organ sales. Let's think about how many people would buy these organs if they had a chance. They could be produced much more readily than the rate at which an organic organ would become available. With such a huge demand for organs, based off of the organ waiting list, we know that these will sell. So how much should the scientists be paid for their services? My opponent said that they should be paid for developing the technology, which they should. But what about the product itself? With such a high demand, the scientists should not have to work producing these organs for free forever.

Organ sales have no benefit to society

Here, it is said that many people will be left out of getting their organs if human sales are legalized. How is that any different from the many people who are left out now, due to the slow process of organ donations? If someone has the ability to pay for an organ that will save their life, it is their human right to do so.

My opponent again asks how sale of organs will decrease theft of organs. We have already established that when human organs become available for sale, the demand for a risky procedure will drop, causing a decrease in the theft of them.

"While it can pick up some of the slack, charity can't be depended on to do what the market can't."

I would like to leave you all with this quote made by my opponent. This is exactly where we are at right now with the trade of human organs. Charity has become the only way for someone to go about getting an organ that they might need in order to save their life. This is risky because it simply is not efficient enough; people are dying waiting to be donated to. It is true that charity should not be the sole supplier of a product; charities should be established to assist the market rather than override it. The sale of human organs will benefit the majority of people in a much greater way than the current system.

Thanks to my opponent for a great debate!
Andromeda_Z

Con

Andromeda_Z forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Also, Raisor had a good point. This did not figure into voting (I vote before reading other RFDs) but Andromeda_Z, you didn't really make a case of your own at all. Your entire case was just rebuttals. My suggestion is to make your own case. When I am the contender, I make it a point to make my own case as well and type that before I type the rebuttals which hopefully gives me control of the direction of the debate. As to Lickdafoot, great job. There was a clear and unambiguous winner in this debate. The one point that I did feel that Con did better on was that if organ sales are legalized, then donations would decline.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD:

Con really had no answer to the fact that organs can help the dead person's family, she just says that it may not be enough just like life insurance is not enough and provides no evidence for this claim. She does however make a great point that organ donation will decline if sales of organs are legalized.

The surgeon argument is an emphatic Pro win. I fail to see how a certain skill deserves payment but a person who gives away a body part doesn't. Con simply repeated what she said in round 2.

Con then entirely conceded the point about the Black market. For the purposes of voting, I disregarded the fossilized body parts, because first, it had barely anything to do with the resolution and then both sides conceded it.

Con completely changes tack on the rodents argument first arguing that they are not human organs, and then conceding to Pro's definition that they are. Pro then makes a great point that the product itself is important.

As for the people who are left out, Pro wins the point again by showing that more people are left out due to organ donation than they would be if organ sales were legalized.

Pro wins nearly every point that was brought up. Con's rebuttals were all outweighed or forfeited, sorry Con. Conduct goes to Pro for Con's forfeit.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
RFD:

Con has major problems with her strategy. Con uses almost exclusively defensive arguments, making it pretty much impossible to win no matter how strong her case is. At the end of the round, if Pro has said "organs are good because of X" and the only thing Con says is "X isnt true" then even if the judge decides X isnt true, all that leaves is that organs are neutral. Given that you are arguing about X, it is unlikely that X is clear cut true or false- there is uncertainty. Even if Con wins that X isnt true with 99% certainty, that still leaves 1% chance that X is true and so a 1% chance organ selling is good. If Con gives no disadvantages to weigh against Pro, well 1% chance of good outweighs 0% chance of bad. This is all true regardless of your opinion on where the burden is (on Pro vs. shared).

That was all sort of a digression, Con does have a few offensive arguments, but they get lost in Pro's advantages. At the end of the round I can clearly think "organs are good because it makes transplants more accessible and motivates synthetic organ market." On the other hand I have almost forgotten why its bad, because that issue barely discussed. Con, dont let Pro control the debate- hold on to the issues that help your case rather than getting sucked into just refuting your opponent.

Con should note that these are all issues that are very easy to fix once you are aware of them.

Clear decision for Pro due to a flawed Con strategy.
Posted by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
*these are in reverse order, sorry about that, please read them the right way*

"I would like to leave you all with this quote made by my opponent. This is exactly where we are at right now with the trade of human organs. Charity has become the only way for someone to go about getting an organ that they might need in order to save their life. This is risky because it simply is not efficient enough; people are dying waiting to be donated to. It is true that charity should not be the sole supplier of a product; charities should be established to assist the market rather than override it. The sale of human organs will benefit the majority of people in a much greater way than the current system."
If we use both the market and charity to provide organs, such as with the custom organs grown by scientists, then this problem is irrelevant because the charity goes father with regards to providing organs. A little bit of charity can be enough; it isn't as much being asked of the donors. They don't have to take time off work, they don't have to lose an organ, they don't have to undergo surgery, all they have to do is donate a bit of money, which many people already do.
Posted by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
*read the previous comment first*

Custom Body Parts

"With such a high demand, the scientists should not have to work producing these organs for free forever."
Where did I say they should work for free? They can still get paid for growing the organs without the organs themselves being sold. An organization can raise money (by donations, selling chocolate bars, auctions, box tops, pink stuff, or any of the many methods people use when they need money) and use it to pay scientists to grow the organs. The organs can then be given away for free to people that need them. Although charity cannot be counted on to provide the organs themselves, this could work because it is much more efficient. The organs could be grown fairly quickly, and one scientist would be able to grow quite a few of them. A little charity goes a long way here, and a little charity is definitely within the realm of possibility.

Organ sales have no benefit to society

"Here, it is said that many people will be left out of getting their organs if human sales are legalized. How is that any different from the many people who are left out now, due to the slow process of organ donations? If someone has the ability to pay for an organ that will save their life, it is their human right to do so"
How is that any different from how it is now? Those with money already pay for their organs (on the black market), but those without money get their organs for free. If organ sales were legalized, then a greater proton of organs would be for sale, rather than for free.
Posted by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
Lickdafoot gets the conduct point for letting me do this. I'm not really concerned with what you do with the rest of the points (that's completely up to you, voters), just remember that Lick gets conduct points for being an awesome opponent.

<strong>The Waiting List</strong>

If the supply is decreased by the religious beliefs of the potential donors, then why would the demand not be? Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Shintos are against organ donation. Christian Scientists prohibit all forms of healing besides meditation and prayer. Shinto says that dead bodies are impure and defiling them brings bad luck. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose any form of blood transfusion, and organ transplants almost always involve blood. There are certain situations in which the organ can be completely cleaned of blood, but this is rarely practical. Religious beliefs decrease demand as much as they decrease supply.

"there can be organizations made to help people pay for these organs."
This really seems like an unnecessary step. If we're depending on charity to get everyone the organs the need, then why should we use charity to help people pay for sold organs rather than simply using charity to get people to donate the organs? Either way, you've conceded that there will be charity involved.

<strong>Donors don't benefit from their gift</strong>

"Should this deflect from what the donors are doing; putting their lives at risk to give someone else the chance to live?"
Everything you do puts your life at risk. You could get hit by a bus while crossing the street. Your computer could short-circuit and catch on fire, burning the house down with you in it. Even drinking too much water can be lethal. I acknowledge that organ donation is a risk, but is a risk really that significant that it means they should get paid for it?
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Okay, finee, re-voting. :PP

RFD:

First, my conduct point still goes to PRO for CON's forfeit, (unless Andro posts her argument in comments since Lickdafoot forgived her forfeit).

Second, I'm gonna give the argument points to PRO for making a persuasive argument on almost all contentions, on the 'Waiting List' contention, CON states that people will prefer selling than donating, it doesn't actually matter, and as PRO said, there are people/organizations that can take care of that problem, and it all depends on the person, which can then increase the donors which can help the patients, she showed that donors do not actually benefit (financially) from their gift, which is actually true, next, CON conceded the 'Black Market' argument, which means PRO wins this contention, the 'fossil' argument was, I agree, kind of irrelevant, not related to organs. The 'custom organ' contention is debatable, can't decide adequately on it yet. And finally, to CON's main arguments on organs not being beneficial, she argues that if legalized, the rich will override the poor, and that even though organ theft will reduce rates, people will still steal, it's somewhat shallow, people steal, no doubt, PRO has refuted these contentions.

But of course, if CON posts her final rebuttals (esp. to her 'Organ not beneficial argument', I might reconsider voting.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jm_notguilty is a ruthless guy. He ensures that everyone who forfeits loses a point for conduct regardless of whether or not he reads the deabate :P
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Andromeda please post your final argument. I think most people would rather read it in than vote on an incomplete debate.
Posted by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
aww, if you like, i would be okay if you posted the argument in the comments, and then people could still vote on that. they could take off a conduct point if they think that's fair.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LickdafootAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The impact of Pro's contentions outweighed Con's on most points. Analysis of points in the comments.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
LickdafootAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for late last round. RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
LickdafootAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Commentz