The Instigator
connorgon
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is an Organ Lottery Ethical?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 63657
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

connorgon

Con

To begin, I'd like to go to the liberty to explain what the organ lottery is. The organ lottery is when every person's name is put into a drawing persay, and if your name was drawn whenever someone needed organs, you are required by law to have all your organs harvested for people who need them.

I firmly believe that this is not OK. Imagine, you're a 6 year old boy and your name is drawn from this lottery and you are forced to end your life that moment for people who need organs. The reason people donate organs is because they care about the person they are donating the organ for and hope they can live a nice life. To the contrary with this lottery, you would be forced to give your organs to people you have never met face to face and you have no choice but to die for their right. If this never exists, it would be good for all the regular people that do donate organs. They get a small sum, they don't always die, and both can live a happy life.

One side I can see to the other side of the argument is that this helps donors get their organs much faster. But what is more important, a person that possibly has to wait 6 months to get a heart from a victim of a car crash or a shooting... etc, or have large masses of people who want to revolt from the government, protestors, and have immigration from other countries thin to little to none per year?

If you were a rich politician that had no fear of dying by this lottery, I could definitely see why you would like this idea. Randoms from the streets being taken in so your children can get a high quality heart? Honesty, organ harvesting death row prisoners is a more logical idea. All that happens is that they are sedated, and all their organs are removed. This gives life to others from horrible criminals to honest people. But that's another topic.

I am doing this debate for school, so if someone could enter their input I would be grateful. Thanks guys.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro


The Survival Lottery or the “Organ Lottery” (as my opponent calls it) is a thought experiment created by John Harris. The philosopher John Harris starts out with us, the audience, looking at a world where organ transplant has been perfected in a way that organ transplants are safe and effective. We are drawn to two patients, patient “X” and patient “Y”. Patent X is in need of a new heart and patent Y is in need of a lung. Now what happens is with the Survival lottery is that now they can choose someone at random who has the qualifications for X’s heart and Y’s lung, they can kill person “A” and their heart and lung to X and Y to save their lives.



Now there is an ethical dilemma in the status quo. As of 12:07 AM this morning, 123,995 people are in need of organ donations and all year there have only been 8,279. If one donor can save 8 lives only around 15,500 donors need to be chosen from the lottery. http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov...

Life is important, humans are needed to contribute to society and keep our countries strong. We need to find ways to save the most lives; the Survival Lottery is a model that would save 8 lives for every 1 sacrificed.

Because lives are saved using this model you should vote Con.


I now open for the rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
connorgon

Con

connorgon forfeited this round.
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

Awe, it looks like my opponent forfeited.

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
connorgon

Con

Real quick before I start, thank you to my opponent for the ideas, I debated yesterday and won with a landslide due to my opponent speaking on the topic for 30 seconds. No joke.

And sorry for the late rebuttal, I lost track of time, and I'm dealing with some really bad stuff. Really bad. But on a plus side I guess, it's my birthday! Yay...

--------

My opponent has stated that a large number of people need organs and about 4,000 will meet get them. I understand where she is coming from, but is living in constant fear a good way for children and pregnant women to live? Imagine you're a parent and suddenly when you get home from work, your 7 year old son has already been taken to a government facility and harvested all his organs? Many people die every day. I had a relative die recently. But does the live of one person that is healthy deserve to die for someone else's good?

Not to mention the risk of all the possible sicknesses you could get from someone else's organs? Your body could reject the organ and you die, promanately std viruses can be transferred, mono, and many more. Does this one reason of the potential to save people from dying change how we view killing others? (Sorry if I worded that strangely... Or all of this )

People die every day. Why pretend we are saving some by killing others for a few people's good?
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

SPENCERJOYAGE14 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
What do you mean? o.o
Posted by connorgon 2 years ago
connorgon
Why is that meet there? O.o
Posted by connorgon 2 years ago
connorgon
Damn forgot to post.... Well...
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Such an exciting debate resolution to play devil's advocate for.
Posted by connorgon 2 years ago
connorgon
You would be debating why we should have the lottery, so you have the burden of proof. Any help is greatly appreciated. I would like to see possible topics my opponent could bring up on the subject. :D
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Seems like an interesting topic. Might take you up on it. However, who had the Burden of Proof? I'm in no way actually Pro for this topic but it would be interesting to play devil's advocate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
connorgonSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel con made a more convinving argument, nobody should tell you that your going to harvest your organs, it's your choice.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
connorgonSPENCERJOYAGE14Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro very, very narrowly wins because she shows more potential of organ donation rather than con's one sacrifice. Con almost makes it back, though, with his argument concerning young people dying. If he had shown this young man could potentially live longer than those 8 (old) people, then he would have won.