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

One needs to actively object organ donation

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 54721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




In most countries it is still common, that you have to actively decide to be an organ donor rather than making everyone (including children) an organ donor by law with the option to object against this personally.

I see arguments for both sides and would like to debate which system seems to be ethically, socially and logically the better choice.

To keep it simple and sorted I propose the following order:
Round 1 - Acceptance only
Round 2 - Short opening statement
Round 3, 4 - Evolved statements and counter arguments
Round 5 - Conclusion (No new arguments)

I am going to take the position that it is in fact the better concept to make people protest against having their organs donated after they have been declared dead or brain dead.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


/PERSONAL NOTE/ Nice to have you joining me in this debate. I am looking forward to go into this topic.

Many people die every day and some of them die, because they are unable to get an organ donation. It's a shame especially when there is a organ compatibility between those who would have died anyway and those who could have lived.
I am going to argue that especially young and healthy people (which makes them perfect donors in case of an accident) don't think about that topic and leave their relatives with the crucial choice to actively decide for them to remove their loved ones organs. I also want to explain that getting a relatives consent or finding out about a patients positive views on organ donation takes often to long and endangers the transplantation.

Optionally refusing organ donation instead of optional approval is therefore the better choice because it does not set relatives under extra pressure, raises the survival-chances of transplantation patients in terms of the amount of organs available as well as the surgery time that get's riskier with every hour. This concept is furthermore a open threat to organ-harvesting in poor countries. And I want to argue that those who are really strongly religious or disapprove will have this point sorted early to have their (selfish) reasons secured.


KittensWithWings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


/PERSONAL NOTE/ Seems like I am not having any luck today, that's the second debate where someone is forfeiting a turn in the second round - seriously, is it me? Anyway...

I would like to offer my Opponent once again to state his basic point to better enable me to outline my arguments. In the mean time I am adding the full list of the main statements for this debate and hope for a response.

1. Organ donation saves lives of patients who would otherwise die

2. Many transplant-able organs aren't used because the patient has not set a will, so
a) the approval of relatives comes too late
b) the relatives don't agree to a donation because the doctors put too much pressure on them

3. This is a lost chance because most young, suitable donors support organ donation or don't care
4. This system promotes a positive new way of ethical thinking within the society
5. Optional Organ-Withholding saves lives of those who would participate in Second/Third-World-Organ-Harvesting

6. THEREFORE overcomes logically and ethically the desire of being buried (or even burned) in one piece.


KittensWithWings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Please, kindly extend your argumentation.


KittensWithWings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4



Looking into an average statistic for Kidney Donation, we can see that donations from deceased patients is the most important source of donations even for those organs that could be donated while both parties are still alive [1]. Raising the amount of people that donate after death can therefore strengthen the most important donor source for all types of organ donation, as we can assume that barely anyone donates an organ that he need completely.

Also, the chances of the patient, as the part taken from the deceased can be cut more freely, is raised. It also would make live-organ-donation less important and avoids therefore surgery mistakes that could kill or harm the donor. Dead donors can't die again, this part of the surgery is therefore rather risk free.


This is only one short example of many aspects that make organ donation so important and finally overcome any post-death-selfishness and should lead to a general organ donation for all patients that have not specifically set a will that they don't want this to happen.

From an emotional point would this make the decision not whether you want to be a very odd kind of hero after you die, but rather an active decision that you willingly accept that someone might die because of your believes. Organ donation after death is not something you decide for because you want to be a good person. Giving something away that you don't need is not an act of kindness and great character - it's logical. On the other hand, actively keeping something to yourself for no good reason is certainly an act of poor character.

I'm looking forward to having this debate with someone interested in the topic to actually embrace the full potential. I cannot thank my opponent but I presume I can hope for the voters to let him/her see that this is an unacceptable way of debating (or not debating in this case).


KittensWithWings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
I fully agree with you that this is a horrible burden, but the younger the children the less they are able to receive an adult's organ. A young child or baby with a failing organ is in a worse position than a grown person. And I am not sure what is worse: that a couple looses their child or that another couple is facing the same.
One might say that a child in need of an organ transplantation might be too weak for a normal life anyway but I want to remind that there are many reasons why one might need an organ and that is not always a generally weak body.

Anyway - I am probably giving this topic another shot in a few days, hopefully with a better partner.
Posted by munkhtulgaod 2 years ago
Shame that this topic was forfeited. I would like to comment just for arguments sake. I believe only consenting adults should be required to object to organ donations as kids should not be made to donate organs. For example, if a child passes away and they are required to donate, imagine being the parents of the child where authorities come and start cutting up the child's body at the morgue. Whereas I myself would gladly be a doner as I am an adult capable of making my own decisions, there are children in the world who pass away before knowing what an organ is...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF but S&G was equally good.