The Instigator
aleah_nicole
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
volleyball3
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Selling Human Organs be Illegal or Legal?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,848 times Debate No: 52249
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

aleah_nicole

Pro

There are not enough organs to go around with just the waiting list for transplants. Over 75,000 Americans are on a waiting list but only 18,000 will be able to get the transplant. And even with the transplant, life after the procedure is not always exact. Every transplant for a different organ's percentage is different. For kidneys 10% of the patients will die afterwards due to hereditary causes, such as the poly-cystic kidney disease. With the 18,000 people getting the transplant, 4,000 waiters will die waiting (18 people will die each day) and 1,200 will be too sick to get the transplant because of the wait. If 19-65 people sold organs the waiting list would disappear.
www.forbes.com/sites/marciaclark/2013/06/13/selling-your-organs-should-it-be-legal-do-you-own-yourself/
volleyball3

Con

Distributing Consequences
If organ selling becomes legal to sell then there will be less donations made which can bring down the chances of poor people to get what the transplantation they need (Dworkin). Also, with it being expected for people to pay for organs then you still need to pay for the transplants. If sold then processes for organ transplants will longer and increased. In organ trafficking kidneys are sold around $400-$500 and transplants are $1000-$8000(Dworkin). if legal it will bring up prices making it harder for poor people to get transplants. These are distributing consequences if made legal.
Debate Round No. 1
aleah_nicole

Pro

There are several organs and tissues that can be donated ,and sold, as a part or whole without any safety risk from the donor. If the liver is cut in half (two lobes), it can grow back to its full size and some patients can use just half of a good liver to revive on. Taking one kidney, part of the pancreas, part of a lung and part of the intestine can re-heal and still function normally. Same as donated skin, blood, bone marrow, blood stem sells and plasma. The heart can be donated and sold too, only if it is replaced with another one. Part of a donor's eyes can be donated and sold too such as the cornea. A cornea transplant takes the damaged cornea tissue and then replaces it with better cornea tissue from the donor.
www.organdonor.gov/about/livedonation.html
volleyball3

Con

Health Risks of Organ Transplants
With organ transplants there is the risk of infection due to immunosuppressant medications. There is also the risk of a rejection of the transplanted organ. A potential threat is for blood transfusion due to blood loss in the operating room (UC Davis). A related risk for transmission of infectious diseases from the donor (UC Davis). The infectious disease can be passed to recipient. It is a possibility that a disease can be undetected and the disease may be passed on to the patient causing health issues. It is less likely to get AIDs, other viruses, or cancer but it can show up that there is no sign of cancers or viruses.

"Potential Risks of Transplant Surgery." Http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu.... UC Davis Health System Transplant Center, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...;.
Debate Round No. 2
aleah_nicole

Pro

If selling human organs became legal, the crime rate would go down. People are getting murdered and kidnapped just to harvest organs. When people are in need of a certain organ, and a person would be willing to do what ever to get the specific organ, murdering can be involved. With that being said, since the organs or illegal to sell, black markets arise. Black markets basically sell the human organs on the low illegally. If selling the organs became legal, there would be less corruption by lessening the need to sell the organs in secret. Every country but Iran prohibits selling human organs. That is because in Iran the selling is regulated and the practice money goes to The Charity Association for the Support of Kidney Patients (CASKP) and the Charity Foundation for Special Diseases (CFSD). Those charities control the trading of the organs and make sure the procedures to transplants and donors are compatible.
debatewise.org/debates/1249-should-pee-be-allowed-to-sell-their-own-organs/
volleyball3

Con

Religion Morality
According to some religions selling your organs it is not okay to be doing good then asking to be paid for your good deed. It should be a selfless act. Some religions see the human body as sacred and cannot be tampered with. Some Muslims believe that your health will be cured by god and only god can cure it rather than getting organ transplants (cogprints, 7). In Chinese ethic origin it was wrong to return a person"s body not intact with their organs (cogprints, 8). They need to go back with all their organs. The body is a very sacred thing and shouldn"t be tampered with (cogprints).

"Organ Transplants: Ethical, Social and Religious Issues in a Multi - Cultural Society." Cogprints.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://cogprints.org...;.
Debate Round No. 3
aleah_nicole

Pro

Money is involved with selling and donating human organs. The average black market prices within America include eggs being $8,000, bone marrow being $270,000, one lung being $400,00, double lung being $550,000, a kidney being anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000, a heart being $650,000, the liver being $520,000, the pancreas being $300,000, the cornea being $23,000, etc. With each of those prices, people in need of money with good conditioned organs, can get what they need by being able to sell their organs. Not only people in need can use the money, but charities, elderly, children, etc. can all be helped by either receiving or selling organs.
volleyball3

Con

Ethics
When you sell your organs you are practically selling yourself like a slave. Just like how now there are restrictions on how a person can sell for labor (Bioethics). Uses their body for themselves but cannot turn that body over to other for their permanent use and benefit (Bioethics). It is voluntary slavery when selling their organs for money. If you own something does not "confer" the absolute right to transfer ownership and control to anyone else in any manner you wish (Kishore). Selling organs is like selling yourself for prostitution and being a voluntary slave to others.
Friedman, E. A., and A. L. Friedman. "Payment for Donor Kidneys: Pros and Cons." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 12 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nature.com...;.
Kishore, R. R. "Human Organs, Scarcities, and Sale: Morality Revisited." Journal of Medical Ethics. Indian Society for Health Laws and Ethics, 17 July 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://jme.bmj.com...;.
"Bioethics: Selling Organs for Transplants." Bioethics: Selling Organs for Transplants. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://atheism.about.com...;.
Debate Round No. 4
aleah_nicole

Pro

Anyone can sign off their body's organs, after he or she is dead, in order to transplant or something. With that being said people should be able to have the right to their own bodies and be able to d their organs if needed and for a good cause. There is no law saying anyone cannot sell their organs and that no one has legal claim until you die.
volleyball3

Con

Exploitation of the Poor
In Pakistan"s for profit market showed that 70% donors were slaves or bonded laborers (Ireland). They don"t have access to excellent health care. A market for organs treats the poor as "tools available for the right price" (Ireland). Even with getting paid it does not even make them an improvement in a economic status. "Unequal bargaining power the price paid to the poor will not be fair" (Dwrokin). It is most likely to sell are those who need the money, but 98% reported a subsequent decline in health after the donation (Ireland). "Dignitary Harm" results exploitation the economically vulnerable (Ireland). Poor people are the most likely to sell organs since they are in need of money exploiting them and selling themselves.
Ireland, Corydon. "Ethicists, Philosophers Discuss Selling of Human Organs | Harvard Gazette." Http://news.harvard.edu.... Harvard Gazette, 14 Feb. 2008. Web. 12 Apr. 2014. <http://news.harvard.edu...;.
Cohen, Eric. "The President's Council on Bioethics: Organ Transplantation: Defining the Ethical and Policy Issues." Https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu.... The President's Council on Bioethics: Organ Transplantation: Defining the Ethical and Policy Issues, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu...
Dworkin, Gerald. Markets and Morals: The Case for Organ Sales. Westview: n.p., 1994. PDF.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NateS 2 years ago
NateS
I side with Con on this topic, however, the argument were equally convincing. The grammar and spelling was better for the Pro side. The Con side had better conduct in my opinion. Also Con had much better sources.
Posted by mmariesanchez19 2 years ago
mmariesanchez19
Honestly I was confused on who was arguing for which side. I can just say that I do not think that selling human organs should be legal. Yes not everyone gets the transplant they need but then again I believe that everything happens for a reason. Living for the now is what is important. I say again that I was confused on who was arguing for what.
Posted by bmattes 2 years ago
bmattes
Both sides provided strong arguments which made the winner unclear to me. Con did have many sources and provided very few numbers. The con also had a weaker argument with the Religious Morality, this argument would have worked well if a little more research were provided for it.

Pro provided statistics which helped their stance by quite a bit. There were a few gramatical errors on both sides that made the arguments a little difficult to understand. Although both sides were very good at presenting their side.
Posted by BLAKEVALENZUELA 2 years ago
BLAKEVALENZUELA
I think one thing that will change my decision are the distributing consequences. I thing that people should be allowed to give away their organs if they die of an early age. In my opinion religion is a big concern to people who might want to sell organs.
Posted by Im_Batman 2 years ago
Im_Batman
The con side of this argument always seems to have a strong rebut to the pro side. I like how it argues that with legal selling of organs, people wont find it in anyway useful to start donating their organs, which in the long run, can lead to a even bigger shortage of organs to go around. It would seem illogical to sell organs to people when the real source of the money is coming from the people who are donating organs in the first place.
Posted by TheGreatestofAllTime 2 years ago
TheGreatestofAllTime
The winner of this debate is unclear for me. The con side did really well in showing the sources and using it's biggest advantage against the pro side, which was the ethnical part. The pro side in the beginning had many good statistics that was shocking to know and helped it's case.

Things that the con side could work on is just overall length of the arguement. The pro side needs to improve trying to end the debate with a "winning point." Both had great research and reliable sources to back their arguements up.
Posted by fraustega 2 years ago
fraustega
I'm going to have to agree with Con on this one. The fact that she states that people would much rather sell their organs instead of signing up for being a donor. The where Pro said "If selling human organs became legal, the crime rate would go down." I don't see that happening, if it became legal to sell organs, then people would want MONEY FOR MURDER. Besides that I think keeping organs illegal to sell would be a better way to go within society.
Posted by megancouillard56308 2 years ago
megancouillard56308
Pro: You had a much more solid argument, in my opinion. You had great facts. I was leaning more on the con side before this debate, but now you have made my opinion solid. I liked how you mentioned other countries legalizing the selling of human organs.

Con: I didn't completely understand every one of your points. You had some good arguments, but most of them were hard to understand, or was not backed up very well. It didn't seem like you were as educated on the topic. (Not saying you're not.) I thought that a few of your points may have been a bit irrelevant such as the topic of religion. Not everyone is the same religion, and they don't have to take part in the selling if they don't need to.

Both: I thought that you both could have elaborated on your topics more, and could have used more facts. There was not much information to go off of, but both sides gave powerful information.
Posted by Trevor.Kramer 2 years ago
Trevor.Kramer
I agree with the pro side of the debate because it has more facts and more evidence. The pros tell how much it cost and how you can still live without some of the donated organs. Such as the liver, and how it can re-grow after half has been removed.

I can also see where the cons are coming from. It is still very costly to remove and put in an organ from person to another. I feel like the cons still did a very good job because it is a lot harder to argue against this topic rather than for it.
Posted by SheepBruhScienceGuy123 2 years ago
SheepBruhScienceGuy123
In the first point, the pro made a great argument. This then defeated the con side of that round. When discussing the reasons why having donations would be ineffective based off the numbers provided, it completely eradicated the con's argument. Pro had great, professional usage of their topic and points.
No votes have been placed for this debate.