The Instigator
Forever23
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Legalize the 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...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 805 times Debate No: 82735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Forever23

Pro

Organ transplantation is one of the chief glories of modern medicine. But it's a miracle tragically out of reach for many thousands of people whose lives might be saved. Every day, about 18 people die because they are waiting for an organ.

My name is Forever 23 and I am here upon this platform to bring forth the premise which is that we should legalize the sale of human organs.

My ensuing roadmap will include first defining this debate, framing it and finally divulging 3 of my own points.

Legalize- make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.

Sale- the exchange of a commodity for money; the action of selling something.

Human- of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.

Organs- a part of an organism that is typically self-contained and has a specific vital function, such as the heart or liver in humans.

I would like to frame this debate to only organs that are not necessary for life. That would mean that organs without which the human would die are not included into the debate,

Our first assertion is that we have a moral duty to save lives and to reduce human suffering when it is in our capacity to do so. Thousands upon thousands of patients die each year simply because of an inadequate supply of organs. Patients needing kidneys wait years in hope of donors, all the while undergoing painful and costly dialysis treatments. Allowing a commercial market in organs could put an end to needless deaths and suffering by increasing the supply of organs.
The shortage of transplant organs is a major worldwide public health problem. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, there are approximately 123,000 patients on transplant waiting lists. In 2014, the overall median waiting time for a kidney transplant was over three and a half years (National Kidney Foundation 2014).Professor John Harris, an ethicist at the University of Manchester, believes a debate and the introduction of an organ market are long overdue. "Morality demands it," he said. "It's time to consider it because this country, to its eternal shame, has allowed a completely unnecessary shortage for 30 years. Thousands of people die each year for want of organs. "

Our second assertion
Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the black market and ensure safer transplants.Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption currently associated with the organ market. It can also make it easy to regulate, and make it safer.
In the United States, the buying and selling of organs on the private market became illegal in 1984 under the National Organ Transplantation Act. Like all prohibitions, restrictions on organ sales have created a huge black market. Black market kidneys average a selling price of $260,000 in the United States and $62,000 in China. You could sell your kidneys, liver, and heart for over $500,000 on the black market. The real market price is up for debate, but it would likely be a substantial sum none the less. Black markets do more than inflate prices. They create a hostile environment for consumers. In organ sales, the outcomes can turn deadly. For example, it is estimated that at least 7,000 kidneys are illegally obtained, which means forcibly removed from someone. Since global supply is nowhere near the demand, black market organs have become such a lucrative business that even ISIS has taken to it.Amy Friedman, director of transplantation at SUNY Upstate Medical University says: "Black market must be closed. Development of a legal, regulated mechanism for donor compensation is the only means of effectively eliminating the demand for this covert activity, closing down the black market and improving safety for donors and recipients. "Professor Nadey Hakim, a Harley Street surgeon, and one of the world's leading transplant surgeons, believes that a properly regulated market should be permitted so that the black market in organs is, if not destroyed, at least dramatically reduced.According to a January report by Credit Suisse, Singapore hospitals treated around 200,000 foreigners in 2002. Last year, they treated more than half a million. At some of Singapore's best private hospitals, foreigners account for a third of total patients " and up to 40 percent of revenue. Legalization would mean an immediate opportunity for saving thousands of lives and dollars. As 30 Americans continue to die every day, it is time we rethink our policy on private organ sales. Organs are your bodily property and government should not use poorly managed bureaucracies to allocate the supply of organs. As with many government policies, the catastrophic results have been contrary to the original intent of patient safety.

Our third assertion is
The utilitarianism theory. The utilitarianism theory states that risking one thing for the greater good. Selling an organ which is not necessary to live will result in the survival of a person. The utilitarianism theory states that the right course of action is the action that brings maximum good. The theory uses the nature of outcome of an action to judge the moral worth of the action. The Act utilitarianism states that before making any choice, one should weigh the consequence of each action and settle for the one that is more likely to give the greatest pleasure (Mill, 2009). The rule of utilitarian involves first determining the potential rules of an action. It advocates that in order to determine the right rule to apply in a certain situation, one should consider the effects of its prolonged use. The rule suggests that if the rule result to more happiness than it was initially due to its prolonged use, then it is a rule that should be followed at always (Mill, 2009).

Thank you, please vote proposition.
Cobalt

Con

I'd like to begin by thanking Forever 23 for creating this topic. It is undoubtedly currently in my topic three favorite topics. I will rebut the opponent's case, then present additional reasons as to why her affirmation of the resolution cannot be accepted in this debate.

The Opponent's Case

Clarification

I'll start by making clear the opponent's framing of this round. To quote her, "I would like to frame this debate to only organs that are not necessary for life. That would mean that organs without which the human would die are not included..."

This frame will be a critical component to my rebuttal against the opponent's points.

Point 1: Moral Duty to Save Lives

Moral issues aside, there seems to be good reason to provide people with life saving organs. It would save lives, which is always a boon to society.

Unfortunately, the opponent's frame defeats the effectiveness of this argument. The only organ which can be considered both "non-essential" and "life saving" is the kidney. All other organs are not included in this case, meaning that much needed heart transplants like the liver, heart, lungs, pancreas, intestines, etc. are not subject to Pro's case. So, we're just talking about kidneys.

The issue with kidneys in particular can be found in my Disadvantages. To summarize, so you aren't bouncing around the page, those DAs demonstrate that legalizing the sell of kidneys does not save lives, but instead lowers the health of society and even makes a person in need of a kidney more likely to perish.

So this point's main advantage -- that it saves lives, is clearly not true.

Point 2: Elimination of the Black Market (organ related).

Due to the reasons I previously discussed, the black market for organs will not be eliminated. There will still be a market for hearts, livers, etc. because those organs do not fall under Pro's case.

A large part of the black market relies on illegally harvesting organs from an unwilling host. If it was suddenly legal to sell organs, we would expect to see an increase in the number of stolen organs. After all, the black market will immediately have a much easier time finding a seller. This would actually result in an increase in the number of illegal harvesting and the death that goes with it.

I do not in any way deny the negative consequenes of black markets and its impact on the economy and societal well being, but it is clear that the opponent's case does not eliminate this market, instead making it stronger.

Point 3: Utilitarianism

I have two points here. The first is, again, referring to my previous argument -- that kidneys are fundementally as available as they can be (legally). Legalizing the sale of non-essential organs does not have the positive impacts of point 1 and point 2, so there is no benefit to society. There is no increase in societal good, so even if we accept that utilitarianism is a useful ideology, this case does nothing to meet said ideology.

Additionally, there are many countries that were founded on ideas that run contrary to the notion of utilitarianism. To reference the the country most familiar with voters, the US was specifically founded on the idea that each person had a set of rights that could not be reasonably taken away. Utilitarianism runs contrary to this ideal, as it demands that some people sacrifice their rights for the good of society. The US (and many countries) operate in such a way that you allow people to retain their rights, even if it is not serve the purpose of optimally increasing societal good.

(Since the opponent's case does not fit the Utilitarianistic ideal, the last point isn't really relevant. I just personally don't like utilitarianism, so I was compelled to include an argument against it.)


Disadvantage 1: Legalizing the sell of non-essential organs lowers overall health and increases medical and societal costs.

Let us start with a hypothetical. Suppose you are down on your luck; your life just isn't going according to plan and you're flat broke. Suddenly, you here that it's now legal for you to sell your kidney and you go do that. You get $50,000 and suddenly things are well.

However, things are not always well when it comes to major surgeries. While most patients who undergo nephrectomies do not experience negative long term affects, a few do. Serious complications can occur during this surgery, with some 1 in 3,000 patients dying. The numbers are even worse considering the long-term affect on health, as 1 in 560 donors will die within 20 years directly due to the transplant. [1]

These numbers may seem small, but one must remember that the market could be very lucrative. We are all essentially born with some $50,000 inside our bodies, totally unuseable. Many people, especially the disadvantaged and the poor, would have no qualms in donating a kidney for fast cash. This increase in mortality rates directly increases medical costs and decreases the health of the average citizen. (Statistical average.)

But the situation gets even worse. Currently, donations take place in hospitals, by the very nature of the law. Legalizing the sell of non-essential organs would very likely have the impact of allowing for private medical clinics to perform this same procedure. (The increase in demand for nephrectomies would necessity the inclusion of a third party.) These private institutions would not be bound by the high standards hospitals are required to have, meaning that many of the preliminary tests used to determine if the kidney is viable might not be performed. When you allow companies to make profit, standards of quality are often reduced in order to increase profits.

This would directly lead to a market flooded with bad kidneys, significantly lowering the survival rate for the receiving patient. As I mentioned earlier, the donors contributing to this market would be disproportionately poor, people who often have poor health as well. All-in-all, there would be a significantly increased risk that patients in need receive a bad kidney, as opposed to the status quo where, if they get a kidney, it will be a good one. Implementing the opponent's policy would actually reduce the likelihood that a person in need would survive.

Disadvantage 2: Legalizing the sell of kidneys would create a market surplus, unnecessarily dimishing the health of the citizenry.

Eventually, the legalization of kidneys would create a market surplus. In a world where you can sell your body in the most literal sense, there exists many more people willing to sell than people in need of the product. This would create an abundance of kidneys that would never be used. After a relatively small period of time, kidneys will "expire", meaning they will no longer be viable for transplant.

Because of DA 1, we see that there is no increase in life for the patients in need. From the reasoning above, we additionally see that many people will be pointlessly donating kidneys, endangering their short-term and long-term health.

This clearly creates a net negative consequence. More people will be worse off health-wise after implementing this policy.

Conclusion

I demonstrated that the opponent's policy would result in a societal decrease in health. If we are to assume her utilitarianist stance, we easily see that the best option would not be to legalize the sell of organs. Her claim that we have a moral duty to increase the well being of society would also work against her. In addition to all this, we would see an increase in the size of the black market for organs and the increase in murders that goes along with that.

It is clear -- we should not legalize the sell of non-essential organs.

Sources:

(1) - http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Pro

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Pro

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Cobalt

Con

Cobalt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
@Forever23 People would kill other people because of the money that they could make by legally selling the organs of their victims. Not because they need the organs for themselves.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
By any chance, can you tell me why I automatically forfeited this round?
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Nicely done, Cobalt. You did a good job on those arguments. I'm sorry your opponent closed her account.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
Not true. There will always be black market trade on a regulated industry. With organ sales, I guarantee you there are going to be some heavy regulations. This is exactly why the Dutch traders were so successful. They would sell goods incredibly cheap illegally bypassing all taxes and regulations.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
When theres no more black market, no ones going to need to kill anyone for their organs. @NikolaGustav
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
If selling organs was legal, what's to stop people from killing you and then selling your organs? It would give murderers a way to dispose of your body and it would create incentive for anyone to kill you, because they could make profit from it. No body, no crime... right?
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Perfect.
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Yes kind of. For example kidneys. You only need one kidney to survive.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
I just want to confirm. Look at that claim, then look at your arguments. Are you sure you want to keep it that way?
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
"I would like to frame this debate to only organs that are not necessary for life. That would mean that organs without which the human would die are not included into the debate,"

Did you mean to say this? You are only referring to non-essential organs in your case?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Forever23CobaltTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: More forfeits by Pro than Con.
Vote Placed by Vane01 1 year ago
Vane01
Forever23CobaltTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I would just like to critique the grammar, "Let us start with a hypothetical.". That's not proper grammar. I saw many more grammar issues such as this in con's speech. Also, throughtout his whole round con used only 1 source. That made his case very unrealistic and hypothetical. Pro on the other hand, sited many articles and that gave her the pro point.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Forever23CobaltTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff more times, so conduct to Con.