The Instigator
mostlogical
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
CosmoJarvis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 99862
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

mostlogical

Pro

Organ donation is a personal choice, I have no problem with living people donating blood etc to loved ones. But people can decide what happens to their organs when they die - https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk.... If you do not take your name off the NHS organ register or discuss with family what you wish to happen to your organs when you die then family will decide what they think you would have wanted.

This is wrong in my opinion, nobody should be an organ donor, and those on the register should take their names off.

Con will try to convince me and voters to sign the organ register.

Round structure

R1: Acceptance only
R2: Arguements and rebuttals
R3: Arguements and rebuttals
R4: Conclusion - no new arguements or sources

No time wasters please, this is a serious debate,

Good luck Con!
CosmoJarvis

Con

Hey howdy hey
Debate Round No. 1
mostlogical

Pro

People usually believe that giving others and themselves more freedom to make choices is not only a good thing but the right thing to do. However, just because a person"s body or their money belongs to them, does not mean we should ask for their consent i.e. accept that people should do whatever they want. People should think how their actions affect others as well as themself.

A good example to understand my point above is terrorism, if we believe that people should do whatever they want with their money and we drop some laws, people would give in to ransoms, and terrorists would continue to target people and hold them hostage because there is money to be made. Obviously people should not do whatever they want with their money, as lives would be put at risk.

When someone signs the organ donation register they will think they are saving lives, and thus doing a great thing because that"s what adverts say. The fact they can donate organs after they die reinforces a belief that it is their body and thus their choice. The only reason I can think of why anyone would sign such a register is to gain respect from others, if I told someone I took my name off the register they would probably think I am selfish or think less of me.

Clearly people don"t need their body parts when they die, and organ transplants have saved many lives, but striving to save lives is a low goal, it probably destroys more lives.

There are people who have signed for particular organs to be donated but not other organs, and those organs which they specifically did not want to be donated have actually been donated by mistake [1]. A mistake like that is simply pushed under the rug like it was nothing that mattered, my source says that the important thing to remember is that people should not be put off, and continue donating their organs to save lives. WHAT IS THE POINT when donating organs in the event of your death devalues your life and everybody else"s life???? When people should donate their organs, mistakes like this are made.

If you are still not convinced that signing a register to donate your organs devalues your life and other people"s, imagine this: you don"t need a transplant yourself but are going to die unless you are helped, a surgeon has a choice, they can decide to not do their best to save your life, because you"ve signed the register they can use your organs to save a few other people who need transplants, the other option is they can do their best to save your live but then cause three other people to die who are desperately waiting for a transplant. What do you think the surgeon should do? Should he be put in that position?

How can someone who abuses their organs e.g. by drinking too much, who then gets a transplant and then abuses the organs again possibly appreciate life? The message people get from the adverts to get people to donate organs is that they can do whatever they want with their body because somebody else will give them a transplant, someone nice, who is dead and doesn"t need their organs anymore. Are people going to respect the dead?

This basically why people should not donate organs in the event they die

I look forward to my opponent"s response, and any comments

Sources:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
CosmoJarvis

Con

Outline
I. Introduction

II. Benefits of Organ Donation
III. ?????
IV. Sources

I. Introduction

Organ Donations are donations where a living or recently deceased person will give someone an organ with their consent, such as a kidney, for the better health of another. There are two different types of organ donations: living and deceased donations. Living donations are where living volunteers donate organs or structures such as skin, bone, muscles or blood vessels. Deceased donations are donations where a deceased person, who has volunteered to do so before death, may give organs, eye or tissue for a recipient (S1).


II. Benefits of Organ Donation

Of course, donating organs, tissue, or any other body parts posthumously will not harm the donater, being that the person is already dead and has no need to use them.


Organ donation can save lives. According to DonateLife.net, over 119,000 people are awaiting lifesaving organ transplants. Every ten minutes, another person is added onto the national transplant waiting list. Twenty-two people die each day waiting for an organ (S2). One organ donor can save up to eight lives (S3).

One common misconception about donating organs is that you will receive compensation, and may use this idea to argue that people may go as far as to steal organs or be desperate enough to give up their own to receive money. However, this is not the case. Selling organs in the US is against the National Organ Transplant Act, passed in 1984, which states that human organs cannot be exchanged for "valuable consideration," meaning any sort of financial value (S4).

III. ?????

I am fairly confused by my opponent's argument. He talks about how organ donations "devalue life," and says that "if I told someone I took my name off the register they would probably think I am selfish or think less of me." I do not know how to exactly respond to these comments. If anything, I think organ donations give more value to the life of both the organ donors and the recipient(s). It lets the organ donor seem more selfless and contributing to a noble goal, and lets the recipient be healthier, extending the lifespan of this person and possibly even giving them the opportunity to experience life in a way that they couldn't be while being bedridden, reliant on artificial organs and machines in a hospital. Additionally, if you think that saying that you took your name off an organ donation list is looked down upon, just don't say it. Your reasoning does not warrant the need to condemn organ donations or make them illegal.

My opponent also talks about terrorism and money with "A good example to understand my point above is terrorism, if we believe that people should do whatever they want with their money and we drop some laws, people would give in to ransoms, and terrorists would continue to target people and hold them hostage because there is money to be made. Obviously people should not do whatever they want with their money, as lives would be put at risk." I honestly do not understand exactly why this was put in. Organ donations are optional. Nobody is holding a gun to a person's head, screaming at them to donate their organs.


IV. Sources
S1) https://www.donatelife.net...
S2) https://www.donatelife.net...
S3) http://www.liveonny.org...
S4) http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
mostlogical

Pro

I must say I am disappointed by my opponent, I was hoping for a serious debater obviously Con is not. Con plays dumb knowing that I cannot counter his argument in the next round , as a result he should lose conduct points, he also misleads voters e.g. he connects what I say about people thinking I am selfish due to leaving the donation register with devaluing life, this is probably to convince voters my argument is weak, confusing, or doesn"t make sense.

I introduced my argument by using a simple example about terrorism to merely point out that just because something belongs to you such as money does not mean you "should" or assume it is right to do whatever you want with it, and this is true for your body too, which is why this topic is debatable. Con"s response to this is "Organ donations are optional. Nobody is holding a gun to a person's head, screaming at them to donate their organs". What Cons fails to realise is that holding a gun to someone"s head does not remove someone"s choice to do the right thing i.e. prevent them from stopping others being in the same situation via not complying.

I do accept Con"s definition "Deceased donations are donations where a deceased person, who has volunteered to do so before death, may give organs, eye or tissue for a recipient". The question is: should someone be an organ donor in the event of their death?

Below is Con"s entire argument:

"Of course, donating organs, tissue, or any other body parts posthumously will not harm the donater, being that the person is already dead and has no need to use them. Organ donation can save lives. According to DonateLife.net, over 119,000 people are awaiting lifesaving organ transplants. Every ten minutes, another person is added onto the national transplant waiting list. Twenty-two people die each day waiting for an organ. One organ donor can save up to eight lives" organ donations give more value to the life of both the organ donors and the recipient. It lets the organ donor seem more selfless and contributing to a noble goal, and lets the recipient be healthier, extending the lifespan of this person and possibly even giving them the opportunity to experience life in a way that they couldn't be while being bedridden, reliant on artificial organs and machines in a hospital. "

Con dismisses my argument about people disrespecting the dead, and thus concedes to my point. Con believes that more people will be happier if more people sign the organ register, however if people disrespect the dead which he accepts, and they vandalise or destroy gravestones, not many families would be happy, nor would they be happy knowing their deceased family member"s organs has probably gone to someone who has no respect for them or the deceased person. Sure people who sign the register to donate their organs in the event of their death will feel selfless, and feel others should do the same, but they will hate those who don"t. Therefore Organ donation divides people into groups, and increases hatred which makes people less happy, and feel their life is not worth as much.
Far more people can die or suffer cruelty as a result of joining the organ transplant register, anything that leads to wars among countries, gangs etc should be avoided, and wars start because people devalue human life. Unless Con can prove that more people are saved than die his argument regarding the number of people who could be saved by organ transplants is invalid.

To clarify how being an organ donor devalues life:

Ask yourself this, if a woman has nine dogs, eight of her dogs are dying but eight can be saved but only by killing one dog, and she kills a dog to save the other eight dogs, would you say she loves dogs? I wouldn"t!! A person who kills what they claim to value cannot possibly be telling the truth, even if the dog was dying, killing a dying dog when it can be saved is just wrong. It"s not something someone would do if they value dogs.

The same is true for humans, if someone can perform an operation to save your life, but in doing so allow eight people to die who are awaiting organ transplants, and they choose not to do that, and instead choose to kill you so they can save eight people, then they do not value human life! Many people mistakenly believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few, so this could easily happen. Imagine how you"d feel if you took someone"s organ, and the only reason they died is because you wanted to live, you"re either going to feel horrible or feel you are better than them.

By signing the organ resister you are signing away the rights to your organs, and people will consequently not try their best to save your life unless you need an organ transplant maybe through wasting your life, abusing your body, drinking too much, eating unhealthy foods - basically not looking after yourself.

People should not be encouraged to believe that there are times when murder or negligence, is okay.
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent begins the third round by saying that my claims are not refutable, and therefore I must lose conduct points. Odd. All I brought to the table were some statistics and valid sources which support my argument.

My opponent has also misinterpreted my argument, saying "I introduced my argument by using a simple example about terrorism to merely point out that just because something belongs to you such as money does not mean you 'should' or assume it is right to do whatever you want with it, and this is true for your body too, which is why this topic is debatable... What Cons fails to realise is that holding a gun to someone"s head does not remove someone"s choice to do the right thing i.e. prevent them from stopping others being in the same situation via not complying." My opponent refers to my remark about how organ donations are completely optional. It is up to the decision of the individual considering donating organs. I still do not see how organs are like money, where, as he says, just because you can donate them doesn't mean you should. My opponent fails to expand upon this claim and explain any consequences of being an organ donor while alive or posthumously.

My opponent proceeds to ask "The question is: should someone be an organ donor in the event of their death?" And yet my opponent still doesn't answer why people should not donate their organs.

Then, my opponent posts a fair amount of my argument, yet hardly addresses or responds to specific points in it.

My opponent concludes his argument with "People should not be encouraged to believe that there are times when murder or negligence, is okay." Honestly, I feel that this comment should only support my argument. If we fail to tend to the 120,000 people in need of new organs simply because we think "organ donations are wrong," then we're basically neglecting their needs and leave them to die, or spend the rest of their lives being reliant on artificial organs.

My opponent failed to refute all of my claims and has yet to bring any evidence as to why we should condemn organ donations, preferably with valid sources and data.
Debate Round No. 3
mostlogical

Pro

To conclude:

Just because something is yours doesn't mean you should do whatever you want, you should consider whether it is right or wrong, how your actions affect others. When you donate organs upon dying you will not just be saving lives or making people healthier like the adverts say, and like my opponent says.

The consequences of being a deceased organ donor = you will not be respected after you die, and thus cause pain to those you love since other people will damage your gravestone. What other consequences did I mention? Hmm you will be giving an organ to someone who will think their life is more important than yours as you are dead so don't need the organ, whereas they do, being a deceased organ donor encourages people to be selfish i.e. not live a happy healthy life. The greatest consequence in my opinion is that people will not try their best to save your life! They may even choose to kill you so more lives can be saved. Murder is never right, do you want people to believe it is acceptable? Do you want to put people in a position whereby they will make the wrong choice? The aim to save as many lives as possible is flawed, it devalues human life, and consequently destroys life that should live. It might be comforting knowing you will save 8 lives, but what about the lives you are not aware of that suffer as a result?

If you choose to not donate organs in the event you die, you not responsible for the death of someone who is awaiting an organ transplant! My opponent supports my argument, people who sign the organ register want to believe they are better than others, and hate people who don't sign the organ register. Is it right to create this hatred? No. Will it make people happy? No. If your organs are taken when you die without your permission, people won't be bothered, they will think that shouldn't stop you from donating organs, so basically a deceased organ donor's life is devalued

Living life to the fullest is what matters, not living as long as you can
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent has tried to refute my claims by saying that posthomulously donating organs will cheapen the meaning of life and is a disrespectful act to the donor. My opponent explains this by stating that posthomulously donating organs will "cause pain to those you love since other people will damage your gravestone." Again, he fails to explain how this will hurt your loved ones and "damage your gravestone." On the contrary, I believe that donating organs will increase the meaning of your life. Donating organs posthumously can save lives. In that way, you have selflessly improved the lives of others. I believe that families would honor that decision, and not see it as an act of "damaging your gravestone."

He also tries to make the claim that "[Doctors] may even choose to kill you so more lives can be saved." However, my opponent has failed to provide any evidence or discuss specific events.

In conclusion, as I have stated in the second round, organ donations are very beneficial. In a society where we have over 119,000 people awaiting organs, and 22 of these people dying each day, we need organ donations. The fact that one donor can save up to eight lives is astounding.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Plexon_Warrior// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con was well mannered and I believed conduct was a time until I saw this posted by Pro. "I must say I am disappointed by my opponent, I was hoping for a serious debater obviously Con is not. Con plays dumb knowing that I cannot counter his argument in the next round , as a result he should lose conduct points, he also misleads voters e.g. he connects what I say about people thinking I am selfish due to leaving the donation register with devaluing life, this is probably to convince voters my argument is weak, confusing, or doesn"t make sense." Spelling and grammar was fine on both sides. Con's arguments were more convincing due to their use of evidence supported by reliable scientific sources. I will admit I may be a little bias as an organ donor myself, and not for recognition or bragging rights, but as I want my death to save the life of another if possible. I'm sorry for my bias if any, but I tried as best as I could to be objective.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments and sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than point at scientific sources as a reason to award points for either subset. They must specifically assess arguments and sources given, and compare them between the debaters.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'm sure. I gave you some feedback on the Conversion Therapy debate. If there's something that you're still uncertain about, let me know.
Posted by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
white flame*
Posted by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
Hey whitefly el seems I've ran into you a few times lately. But now that I understand what I'm actually supposed to do in my reason box, I think that the meetings will decrease at least the unpleasant ones.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Plexon_Warrior// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Cosmojafvis showed great conduct and was tactful throughout the debate. He presented many facts with out resorting to personal attacks and backed up his claims with reputable sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain S&G or arguments. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. If insults happened in the debate, it must be clarified what those insults were. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than state that one side used reputable sources, particularly when both sides used at least some sources. The voter must explain why the quality of one side"s sources outstripped the other.
************************************************************************
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I summarized my points and my rebuttals to some of yours.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I summarized my points and my rebuttals to some of yours.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
A conclusion is supposed to be a summary of your own arguements, not someone elses, no new arguements are to be made in the final round
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
of course their is a problem with the system, people who may not have wanted to donate organs but didn't say so or did but didn't sign a register can have their organs donated. All the adverts which aim to get you to sign the register are one sided. True not every transplant is successful. However I am not debating that the process is flawed, it is obvious it is and that it could be vastly improved. Mistakes will always happen, it doesn't matter what measures you put into place.

I am debating whether people should donate their organs when they die, not because the system is flawed, and needs improving, the whole concept of agreeing to donate organs when you die is wrong. Can you assume people will carry on living happier and healthier lives? No, because the option to donate changes people's behaviour.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 year ago
mschechtel17
@CosmoJarvis @MostLogical

Can I address the elephant in the room?

It seems like @MostLogical is arguing that people should not donate organs because the execution of this process is flawed. While @CosmoJarvis is arguing the fundamental idea of organ donation as if it hypothetically was executed correctly each time.

You both are arguing on different levels of this idea which seems to fit since both of you don't think the other's argument makes sense.

@MostLogical you might want to better specify your question since it is hard to tell if you only disagree with organ donation because it's execution has been shown to be flawed, or would you still disagree with organ donation if in every instance an individual, was aware to their consent for donation, the individual was legally pronounced dead every instance before donation, and the surgical removal and implantation of an organ was successful each time?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
mostlogicalCosmoJarvisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: It's odd that the guy that points out his opponent was breaking the rules of the debate (which for the record show that Cosmojarvis did not), is the one that loses conduct points for being rude in the opening of Round 3. Con 1-0. Spelling and Grammar: I gave up in the Pro's 2nd round. Con 2-0. Arguments: All Con's arguments in Round 2 are unrefuted, along with the fact that the Pro's third point on devaluing life being completely inane means that Con wins arg points. Con 5-0. Sources: Pro's sources are seriously outweighed in quality and quantity throughout all the rounds by Con. Con 7-0.
Vote Placed by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
mostlogicalCosmoJarvisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Points to Cosmojarvis for good manners and politeness in light of the rude remark that his serious debate was "time-wasting" S&G- equal Convincing Arguments- Logically speaking Cosmojafvis's arguments are much more convincing. He was well orated and you could easily follow his reasoning quite easily. He also supported his argument with more evidence Reliability of Sources- Cosmojarvis will receive points as he not only used sources, but well backed sources back with scientific evidence.