The Instigator
ExNihilo
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

The Federal Government should permit the sale of human organs for transplantation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 7 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,397 times Debate No: 16859
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (54)
Votes (7)

 

ExNihilo

Con

First round is for acceptance

Please:

No semantics

Dropped arguments are to be considered concessions

No new argument in last round unless its in response to a new point in the previous round

PRO Burden is to give reasons the federal government should change the status quo and allow for the sale of human organs for the purposes of organ transplantation.

The CON burden is to give reasons why enacting this change should not happen.

Pretty simple.
LaissezFaire

Pro

I accept the debate. Good luck, Con.
Debate Round No. 1
ExNihilo

Con

Observation:
(1) The federal government has a compelling state interest and sufficient reason to ban X if X produces unintended, negative consequences to health when other, less risky alternatives exist.
(2) If X has negative consequences to health and the problem of organ shortages can be solved without a market, the federal government has no good reason to open a market that causes X.

Contention One: The sale of organs for transplantation spreads disease

According to the American Medical Association, "Financial incentives would encourage individuals to donate even if they are of poor health because it encourages donors to conceal disease, or drug use."[1] This is further proven by UCLA's School of Medicine, which reports that "Recipients of vended kidneys have been reported to suffer a high rate of infectious complications, which could not have been prevented easily by routine evaluation."[2] Thus, screening is fallible. Moreover, according to the American Medical Association, "an open market for organs from living donors could result in a large number of private exchanges of organs for dollars, making quality control extremely difficult."[3] This argument is empirically true, as the Journal of Transplantation explains that 35% of paid kidneys fail or are rejected after 36 months, while only 5% of non-paid kidneys suffer the same fate.[4]

This is further proved by the transmission of disease from blood.

Blood forms a crucial role within transplantation. As Professor Thomas G. Peters of the University of Florida explains, Blood group matching is important in transplantation, being as critical to the success or failure of the transplant, as it is in blood transfusions themselves.[5] This is because of the deeply entrenched relationships between vital organs and blood. As explained by Colorado State University, the liver alone contains nearly 15% of the blood in the body.[6] This is greatly disconcerting because according to the Journal of Transfusion, "in heart surgery patients, 51% of those that received blood from paid donors acquired hepatitis, while 0% of those in non-paid donors acquired hepatitis,"[7] and in general, "41% of paid donors had hepatitis, while 0% of non-paid donors did."[8] Furthermore, Screening for these diseases is ineffective. This is pointed out by the Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation: "Paid donors are more likely to donate when blood viruses may not be detectable in screening tests. Screening without this ‘window-period' does not exist and probably never will."[9] Accordingly, by utilizing the organs and therefore contaminating patients with the latent blood of donors, disease is spread and outcomes of both the organs, and patients, are severely undermined.

Contention Two: It is possible to solve the organ shortage without a market

According to Harvard University, "When families were first informed about their relative's death and then offered the option to donate as part of a separate conversation- 61 percent of families agreed to donate, a 17% increase compared to when the request came immediately, as occurring now."[10] Thus, the way in which a simple question is asked means organ donations go up significantly.

Moreover, according to Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, "the 3-mo average deceased kidney donation rate has risen 29% since January 1, 2001, and these increases have largely reflected increases in recovery of kidneys from standard criteria donors…In 2004 alone, there was an increase in the number of deceased donors by 11%, and this trend is continuing."[11] This is important because the Journal of Regulation points out that "Incentives wont aid the shortage, as recent empirical evidence suggests that an increase in the number of living donors has a negative impact on the number of deceased donors." This is proven to be true in the Iranian market system, as the Lancet reports, deceased cadaveric donations in Iran have plummeted as a result of financial incentives.[12] The Mayo Clinic explains the superiority of cadaevaric donations: "by donating your organs after you die you save as many as 50 lives."[13], compared to living donations, which aid only 1.

My opponent must show (1) that a market does not facilitate the spread of disease/decreased quality and (2) a market would actually work and provide UNIQUE benefits that cannot be provided in the status quo. Any non-unique benefits should be ignored since they can, by definition, be derived through other, less risky means.

[1] American Medical Association.. "Financial Incentives for Organ Procurement: Ethical Aspects of Future Contracts for Cadaveric Donors" Arch Internal Medicine Journal. 1995 Mar 27; Vol. 155. http://www.ama-assn.org...

[2] Gabriel M. Danovitch, Professor @ School of Medicine at UCLA, Division of Nephrology and Alan B. Leichtman, Professor @ University of Michigan Division of Nephrology. "Kidney Vending: The "Trojan Horse" of Organ Transplantation" October 4, 2006. American Society of Nephrology. Published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. http://organdonorincentives.org...

[3] American Medical Association.. "Financial Incentives for Organ Procurement: Ethical Aspects of Future Contracts for Cadaveric Donors" Arch Internal Medicine Journal. 1995 Mar 27; Vol. 155. http://www.ama-assn.org...

[4] Professor Thomas G. Peters, University of Florida, "Kidney Transplant Matching: What It Means", http://www.aakp.org...

[5] Professor Thomas G. Peters, University of Florida, "Kidney Transplant Matching: What It Means", http://www.aakp.org...

[6] R. Bowen, Colorado State University, "Physiology of the Hepatic Vascular System", 2002, http://www.vivo.colostate.edu...

[7] T. Eastlund, "Monetary blood donation incentives and the risk of transfusion-transmitted infection", Journal of Transfusion, Volume 38, September 1998

[8] Ibid.

[9] C. L. Van Der Poel et al., Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation, Blackwell Science, "Paying for blood donations: Still a risk?", 2002

[10] William DeJong et al, Professor of Community Health Services, Harvard University, "Options for Increasing Organ Donation", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[11] Gabriel M. Danovitch, Professor @ School of Medicine at UCLA, Division of Nephrology and Alan B. Leichtman, Professor @ University of Michigan Division of Nephrology. "Kidney Vending: The "Trojan Horse" of Organ Transplantation" October 4, 2006. American Society of Nephrology. Published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. http://organdonorincentives.org...

[12] Priya Shetty, "Tax cuts for organs?", The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9698, Pages 1315 - 1316, 17 October 2009 http://www.thelancet.com...(09)61807-9/fulltext

[13] Mayo Clinic, "Organ Donations: Don't let these myths confuse you," http://www.mayoclinic.com...
LaissezFaire

Pro

BOP:
Con claims, “My opponent must show (1) that a market does not facilitate the spread of disease/decreased quality and (2) a market would actually work and provide UNIQUE benefits that cannot be provided in the status quo. Any non-unique benefits should be ignored since they can, by definition, be derived through other, less risky means.”
This is absurd. All I have to show is that laws banning organ markets are illegitimate, for whatever reason. If I show that this is true without showing that there wouldn’t be more disease, for example, I have fulfilled my BOP.

Discourse Ethics and Self-Ownership:
To do anything at all, one must exercise one’s right to exclusive control over one’s body—self-ownership. So, when making an argument, one first presumes self-ownership. Therefore, anyone arguing against self-ownership—saying people don’t have the right to do what they want with their own organs, for example—logically contradicts themselves. Because of this, Con’s entire argument is logically incoherent, as is any possible argument made supporting laws against organ sales.

Disease:
First, the potential for the spread of disease to organ recipients is a non-issue. The question of whether the benefits of getting a needed organ outweigh the potential risks can only be answered by the individuals concerned. No one can legitimately tell another person that the risks outweigh the benefits for that person—how would anyone but each different individual be able to judge that?

Con's Source 1—The full sentence of Con’s quote from this source is, “Though the evidence is disputed, some have argued that paying blood donors lessened the overall quality of the blood supply, at least initially, because it encouraged prospective donors to conceal disease, drug use, or other factors that would make their blood medically unacceptable.” Which, of course, doesn't mean the same thing as Con's quote would have. All the source says is that there may or may not be an initial decrease in the quality of blood, but the evidence isn't conclusive either way. In the next paragraph, the source says that, “In blood donation, routine donor and laboratory screening tests have largely eradicated any quality differences between blood from unpaid versus paid donors. Similar screening techniques for organ donation would maintain the high quality of the organ supply regardless of incentives. Incentives could even enhance the quality of the organ supply if payments were made only after the organs had been judged medically suitable. . . In short, quality concerns most likely can be avoided with appropriate regulations governing the use of incentives.” [1]

Con’s other empirical evidence is misleading. Those rates of problems and infections are only true in the status quo—they could easily be eradicated by allowing a free market in organs. Organ contracts could include a clause says that if the organ seller misleads the buyer about the safety of the organ, the money is taken back and the seller is executed/goes to jail/whatever. This simple change would fix the problem discussed earlier, of people concealing disease/drug use to get the organ money. Of course, complications could still happen, but only ones that couldn’t be prevented by testing or by the donor telling the truth, so they’d only be the same complications you’d see from non-paid donors.

In addition, the statistics he cites are of hepatitis infections in blood. While we couldn’t effectively test for hepatitis when Con’s sources collected the data, we can now. Unless Con can cite recent data regarding undetectable blood infections causing problems, this point is moot.

Solving the Organ Shortage without a Market:
All of Con’s points here are completely irrelevant. Maybe we could increase organ donations by asking questions differently. So what? Con hasn’t shown that we could actually solve the organ shortage, rather than just somewhat alleviate it, with this or other methods. Furthermore, the fact that there are simple, easy ways to increase the amount of organ donation, like asking families differently, actually helps my case. If simply asking a question differently could get a huge increase in donations, why wasn’t that change made universally as quickly as possible? The best way to find and implement these changes is to make sure there are incentives to do so. By making cadaver donations profitable, we’d give hospitals much more incentive to make changes that increase donations. And who knows what other simple changes could increase the amount of organs available for transplant? The best way to find and implement these potential changes is by creating a market, which creates large incentives for these changes.

The points about living vs. decreased donations are also irrelevant. Allowing a free market in organs would mean allowing a market for both living donors AND deceased donors. People could agree to sell their organs before they die, or the money could be offered to families after death. As Con pointed out, a dead body could save as many as 50 lives—which would make the price paid to families for the organs quite high, creating an incentive to donate the organs much greater than could be made without a market.

Problems Market Would Solve:
1. Organ Shortage
As noted before, Con has provided no evidence that the organ shortage can be solved without markets, only alleviated somewhat. Markets, on the other hand, have been proven effective. In Iran, where kidney sales have been legalized, the waiting list for kidney transplants has been eliminated. [2]

2. Black Market Dangers
Without the option of legal organ sales, and the lack of organs donated for free, dying people are forced to turn to the black market for organ sales. This is much more dangerous for both the donor and recipient, as procedures aren’t done as safely as they would be in an American hospital, and organs are often poorly evaluated for safety and matching. [3] [4]

Sources:
[1] American Medical Association.. "Financial Incentives for Organ Procurement: Ethical Aspects of Future Contracts for Cadaveric Donors" Arch Internal Medicine Journal. 1995 Mar 27; Vol. 155. http://www.ama-assn.org...

[2] Ghods AJ, Savaj S (November 2006). "Iranian model of paid and regulated living-unrelated kidney donation". Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1 (6): 1136–45. http://cjasn.asnjournals.org...

[3] Scheper-Hughes, pp. 191–222; M. Goyal et al., “Economic and Health Consequences of Selling a Kidney in India,” Journal of the American Medical Association 288, no. 13 (2002): 1589–93.

[4] A. S. Daar, “Money and Organ Procurement: Narratives from the Real World,” in Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in Organ Transplantation, ed. T. H. Gutmann, A. S. Daar, R. Sells, and W. Land, (Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Publishers, 2004).
Debate Round No. 2
ExNihilo

Con

BOP:
Pro says “all I have to show is that laws banning organ markets are illegitimate, for whatever reason.” Read the resolution. You have to prove that the federal government SHOULD do X, which is a policy change from the status quo. If doing X has unique harms with no unique benefits, you have not given a reason as to why the federal government should change the status quo.

Self-Ownership:
Pro says I contradict myself when I argue because I presuppose having property rights over my own body, and should therefore have the right to sell the organs within my body. This does not apply once is understood by the word “transplantation.”
(1) At the very most, this argument is a warrant for why people should be allowed to sell their organs for other reasons, but insofar as other people are unique harms when organs are sold for the purposes of transplantation, there is a reason to regulate the purposes for which organs are sold
(2) My opponent already conceded this when he insinuated that there could be regulation of the manner in which organs are sold. All my argument does is to show that the general sale of organs should be regulated such that sale for the purposes of transplantation should not be allowed, given the unique harms. Indeed, discourse ethics does not apply when other peoples’ rights are violated. In this case, the right of people to know that the organ they are getting is not diseased or will not fail, both of which happen in the pro world.
(3) I do not need a kidney to argue or communicate. My being a person is not contingent on certain parts of my body.
(4) Even if my arguments are contradict self-ownership, it does nothing to say that the federal government allowing X is desirable. It may be that an argument contradicts Y, but the impact of the argument is better than affirming Y.

Disease:
My opponent says the disease argument is a non-issue since people cannot be told that the risks outweigh the benefits:
(1) This argument holds no weight insofar as there are other ways for people to get organs so that they do not have to decide between risks and benefits, they need only weigh the benefits of transplantation over dialysis, for example
(2) DROPPED: The fact that there is a ‘window period’ in screening that IS empirically exploited by paid donors means that people are accepting organs blind; the risks are not clearly defined as is the case with medication where the risks are explicitly given. The government therefore has a compelling state interest to prevent the dissemination of diseased organs, especially when safer alternatives exist.
(3) My opponent said there can be regulations to stop diseased organs. Insofar as this is impossible given he ‘window period,’ organ sales should be banned for the purposes of transplantation.

My opponent then brings up a rather meaningless indict to one of the quotes I used that basically says differences in disease between paid and unpaid donors have been ‘eradicated’ and incentives could solve the problem when they are given after the transplantation.
(1) This ignores the ‘window period:’ “Paid donors are more likely to donate blood during the ‘window period,’ when blood viruses may not be detectable in screening tests. Unfortunately, screening tests without a ‘window-period’ do not exist, and probably never will” (Poel, 2002).
(2) Systemic empirical analysis: “Overall, the data available continue to indicate that paid donor populations have higher frequencies of blood-borne infections than unpaid ones (see fig 2). Trend analysis does not indicate that the difference in risk between paid and unpaid donor populations has diminished over time (period of 36 years).” (Poel, 2002).
(3) Empirical reductions as a result of volunteer-based donations: “The largest reductions in the incidence of transfusion- transmitted HCV infection have coincided with adoption of an all-volunteer donor system. In the USA, a more than threefold drop in the incidence of post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis was observed in one veterans’ hospital after the proportion of paid donor blood used for transfusions was reduced from 91% to 4%.” (Shepard, 2005)

Then my opponent argues that there can be clauses that punish people who “mislead” organ recipients.
(1) Organ donors who have diseases may not know that they have the disease, but people who have STD’s and other diseases like these are more likely to donate given financial incentives
(2) Given ‘window’ periods, there is no way to detect the diseases within the organs donated by diseased people, which means the damage will have already been done even if punishment is rendered.
(3) All of this can simply be avoided without financial incentives! There are alternatives.

Status quo solvency:
In response to the Harvard ‘question’ study, my opponent asks this question: “If simply asking a question differently could get a huge increase in donations, why wasn’t that change made universally as quickly as possible?” Good question. Just because something has not been done does not mean it would not work. My argument is that IF this alternative exists, it would work and would therefore mean we would not need incentives. Extend the Harvard analysis.

Extend: He dropped the evidence that said there has been a 21% increase in the status quo since 2001, with 11% increases in 2004 alone. This shows solvency in the status quo is possible.

Deceased organs:
He says that giving money for organs after death would incentivize people to donate. He never refutes the evidence I gave: "Incentives wont aid the shortage, as recent empirical evidence suggests that an increase in the number of living donors has a negative impact on the number of deceased donors." This is proven to be true in the Iranian market system, as the Lancet reports, deceased cadaveric donations in Iran have plummeted as a result of financial incentives.

My opponent uses Iran as an example, and Iran proves deceased donations decrease, which means more people die since more are saved with deceased as opposed to living donors (50 compared to 1).

PRO CASE:
1.Shortage:

(1) He cites Iran. Iran proves that deceased donations decrease which means less people are saved
(2) Harvard: 6% responded that people would be more willing to donate with incentives, while 9% said they would be less likely.
(3) Walter Graham points out that open markets would likely lead to exponential increases in foreigners coming to purchase American organs, which means OUR shortage is not solved. Foreigners have access to organs in the status quo as well. Also, the Lancet reports that this problem is evident in Iran.
(4) Richard Titmuss compared U.S. commercial blood markets to UK altruistic system and concluded that incentives led to shortfalls since it discouraged the altruistic motivation. In other words, blood donations would have been higher if it were not for incentives. Christopher Hitchens reports that the UK meets all of its demand with an altruistic system.
(5) The Human Security Journal reports that Spain eradicated its shortage by implementing a presumed consent policy. This increased their organ donation by 142%, proving there is no unique benefit to incentives

2. Black Market:
Non-unique since they would not need to go to black market with presumed consent, or any number of other alternatives that are not incentives.

DROPS:

- Journal of Transplantation explains that 35% of paid kidneys fail or are rejected after 36 months, while only 5% of non-paid kidneys suffer the same fate. This means that other alternatives that don’t include incentives should be preferred, and there is no reason to change a ban.
- 51% get hepatitis with paid vs 0% with unpaid according to a meta-analysis. He drops the ‘window period’ for screening, so his refutation from future screening abilities fails since the evidence he drops indicates “this probably will never change (window period).
LaissezFaire

Pro

Self-Ownership:
1) Con argues that this only shows that people should be allowed to sell their organs, but not that they should be allowed to sell them to people who want to put them in their bodies. This ignores the right of the recipients to do what they want with their own bodies.
2) I didn’t concede anything about government regulation of organ sales. The only time I mentioned regulation was when quoting Con’s Source 1, to show what the source actually said. And ‘regulation’ doesn’t necessarily mean forced government regulation, which would be the only kind that would contradict self-ownership. Regulation could be voluntary regulations set up by doctors, hospitals, organ matching organizations, whatever. And surely people would not need the government to force regulations on them—people buying organs would want standards for transplants, and would agree to them voluntarily
3) While people don’t use their kidneys to communicate, they must exercise control over their entire body in order to communicate. You can’t only use your brain and vocal cords—if you are controlling part of your body, you are necessarily controlling your entire body.
4) It shows that all arguments for organ bans are illegitimate. If there is no legitimate arguments for continuing organ bans, the government should stop banning organs. This is a crucial distinction—the government legalizing sales wouldn’t be like flipping a switch from one policy decision to another, with switching from the status quo to the new policy being the active choice. Legalizing is just the government not actively banning sales any more—arguments are needed for the pro-banning side to justify its active continuation.

Disease:
People’s right to take risks with their own lives-
1) The problem with Con’s argument here is that there aren’t other ways for people to get organs. You can’t wait on a waiting list forever—especially if you need a vital organ, like a liver, rather than a kidney, which is easier to wait for.
2) That point wasn’t dropped—my original point here is the same, regardless of Con’s ‘window-period’ point. It doesn’t matter if people are accepting organs “blind”—that’s how risk works, you always don’t know what’s going to happen when you take a risk (and people could know the odds of infection—there are statistics on the subject that they could look at). Whether this risk is worth taking can only be determined by individuals themselves.
3) That doesn’t make it impossible, it just makes organ sales riskier. And if people want to take that risk with their own lives, rather than wait for a donor, that’s their decision to make.

Statistics, difference between paid and unpaid-
1) This does not ignore the ‘window-period.’ Con’s own source said that differences in disease from people that got paid and unpaid transplants have been eradicated. If these undetectable window-period diseases made a difference in the disease rate of the recipients, then that difference would not have been eradicated.
2+3) As I said before, while there was difficulty screening for certain diseases in the past, we now have better methods of screening, which is why Con hasn’t provided any recent evidence of a significant amount of infections from paid donations. The window period is a problem if the only test you have is for antibodies of the virus you’re looking for, but if you can look for the virus itself (that is, the RNA), which we can now do, it is no longer an issue. Tests are now so accurate that only 1 in several million units of donor blood is infected with hepatitis C, for example, which is why Con can’t find any RECENT evidence about transplanted infections.

Clauses for punishing donors of diseased organs-
1) While someone may not know if they have an STD, they would know if they have had unprotected sex recently, or engaged in other risky behavior. It doesn’t matter if they’re ignorant of their disease—they just have to be honest about their behavior.
2) See 1, about risky behavior. Also my previous point about how we have better screening technology now.

Status Quo:
Con misses my point here. An organ market would create much greater incentives for implementing that easy fix, and others that we don’t know about yet. It doesn’t matter that they “could” be implemented without an organ market—they aren’t. We “could” get a sudden giant increase in altruism that completely alleviates the organ shortage, without needing an organ market. But we don’t have that, just as we don’t have a system that gets hospitals to implement the easy fixes that would increase the amount of organs available. Furthermore, Con hasn’t provided evidence that this would be enough to fix the organ shortage, rather than alleviate it.

I didn’t drop Con’s evidence about the increase in donations, I just pointed out that it is irrelevant, since it doesn’t support Con’s claim that we can solve the organ shortage without markets, it just shows that we can make the organ shortage slightly less bad without markets.

Deceased Organs:
The evidence Con gave doesn’t refute anything I said. As I said, allowing payment for cadavers would create a huge incentive for families to allow those cadavers to be donated. The case of Iran, which Con cites as evidence, does not disprove this, since Iran did not legalize the sale of cadaver organs, only kidneys.

Pro Case:
1. Shortage:
1) See my previous point under ‘Deceased Organs.’
2) Obviously, there’s something wrong with this poll, since, as stated before, the legalization of the kidney market in Iran eliminated the waiting list for kidneys completely.
3) Well, if we’re including the effects of foreigners, then there’s no reason foreigners couldn’t also come in to donate organs. Also, what difference does it make if foreigners get organs rather than Americans? A life is a life, there’s no reason that saving more foreigners lives should be less significant than saving more American lives.
4) Irrelevant, because we’re talking about organ markets, not blood markets. I’ve already provided evidence that markets for organs work—it doesn’t matter if markets for blood have problems. Maybe people just don’t care as much about compensation for blood, because the compensation would be such a small amount. But that problem isn’t there for organ donation.
5) Spain does have a much higher than average organ donation rate, but when comparing all presumed consent countries to all informed consent (what the U.S. has now) countries, the difference is much lower. [1] Even under presumed consent, families can, and often do, refuse donation—a problem that could be significantly alleviated by offering those families financial compensation. There’s no evidence that this would fix the organ shortage, eliminating the need for markets.

2. Black Market
Still unique as long as non-market options alleviate the organ shortage, rather than eliminate it, which I’ve shown is the case. As long as there are people who need organs and are willing to buy them (and can find people willing to sell them), which would still be the case, even with Con’s fixes, the black market would still exist.

Drops:
-Was not dropped. I responded by saying that 1) that was the case in the status quo, not in a free market 2) we have better tests now and 3) it’s up to individuals themselves to decide whether it’s better to take the risk or keep waiting
-Also wasn’t dropped. I said that while we had those problems testing for hepatitis before, we don’t anymore, which is true. Con’s source saying that tests “probably will never change” is irrelevant—they’ve already changed.

[1] Cameron, Stuart and John Forsythe. 2001. "How Can We Improve Organ Donation Rates? Research into the Identification of Factors which May Influence the Variation." Nefrología 21, 68-77.
Debate Round No. 3
ExNihilo

Con

BOP:
My opponent has dropped my observation out of the last round. Don’t let him bring this up next round as I will not have a chance to respond. My opponent must show that a market provides unique benefits that cannot happen otherwise because if the same benefits can happen without a market, there is no reason the federal government SHOULD change the law, given the unique harm of disease.

Self-Ownership:
1.People have a right to know that they will not be the recipients of diseased organs. My opponent seems to not even know how a market works. In a market, Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) would not end which means people would still be getting organs from a third party. The right to not get an organ that is diseased outweighs the right to insert a diseased organ into ones body. Plus, a person need not even make the decision since the shortage can be solved otherwise without the problem.
2.The point is that it is an act of aggression to sell a diseased organ, whether intentional or unintentional. Thus, there is a legitimate state interest in banning for the purposes of TRANSPLANTATION. We can debate a general sale later on.
3.It does not follow that just because I control X that therefore X is a necessary precondition for my ability to engage in discourse. In the case of a kidney or liver, my arguing is not a warrant for these things being labeled as property, in itself, because I can function without these things (part of the liver can be removed).
4. You did not answer my argument. Even if your argument works, it does not mean it provides desirable outcomes, in which case the federal government SHOULD NOT do it. You assume not-consequentialism, but insofar as my impacts outweigh yours, discourse ethics really does not matter. Its your burden to prove the ethical framework on which your argument relies, you did not, and therefore, cannot in the next round.

Disease:
Peoples right to take risks:
1.There are other ways for people to get organs and my opponent just asserts this whereas I have offered alternatives.
2.The point is that it is an absolutely unnecessary risk. Plus, its actually coercive since you are forcing someone to take that risk when they feel compelled to do so. Given other viable alternatives where people do not have these risks, its just not necessary.

Statistics:
1.It has not been eradicated. DROP: My source from 2002 directly states that the ‘window period’ (in a market people would exploit it) is the period that CANNOT be screened and it actually says likely never would. The source he indicts is from 1995!
2.My opponent has provided NO evidence about disease. Thus, look to mine: “Overall, the data available continue to indicate that paid donor populations have higher frequencies of blood-borne infections than unpaid ones (see fig 2). Trend analysis does not indicate that the difference in risk between paid and unpaid donor populations has diminished over time (period of 36 years).” (Poel, 2002). THAT IS RECENT. Or how about the following: “The largest reductions in the incidence of transfusion- transmitted HCV infection have coincided with adoption of an all-volunteer donor system. In the USA, a more than threefold drop in the incidence of post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis was observed in one veterans’ hospital after the proportion of paid donor blood used for transfusions was reduced from 91% to 4%.” (Shepard, 2005)

Punishment:
He drops that it is an unnecessary risk, one that the victim must be subjected to. This point is rather meaningless.

Status quo:
Here he fails to provide one single piece of evidence for the claim that a market would work! He just asserts it! We also don’t have a market. So what? The point is that alternatives exist that would work, without the harms in his world.

EXTEND: “He dropped the evidence that said there has been a 21% increase in the status quo since 2001, with 11% increases in 2004 alone. This shows solvency in the status quo is possible.” Prefer this. I have shown that the trend is positive on my end, he has given no evidence that a market would work. Moreover, Harvard says merely asking a question differently provides substantial gains.

Deceased Donations:
Again, con merely asserts a market would work. I have given evidence to the contrary in two cases: (1) Journal of Regulation says that when you give people incentives, they are more likely to donate alive and empirically these have decreased and (2) this is proven in Iran. The incentive to get money is only relevant when someone is alive! Note: deceased donations>living because you can donate several, instead of just one, organs when dead

PRO CASE
Shortage:
My opponent ONLY APPEALS to evidence from Iran to say a market would work. He does not even explain why this applies to the U.S. I have given several reasons to think otherwise:
1.Harvard: 6% say people are more willing with a market, 9% less likely. He just asserts “obviously there is something wrong since it worked in Iran.” So what? These are U.S. respondents. This proves a market would NOT work in the U.S.
2.Americans do not need money as much as Iranians. He makes dubious assumptions
3.Extend foreigners argument: If foreigners come here, as they do now, to buy our organs the problem is not solved. He provides no evidence that says they will come here to donate (which is absurd). On the issue of saving a foreign life: we can do that without a market
4. Extend the Titmus blood evidence: He says that maybe the compensation for blood is not a big incentive. People are more likely to want money for blood, which they regain, than for something they lose forever. The evidence absolutely applies since the point is that altruism is the driving motivator in donations, not money.
5.Actually, he argues for my side! Yes, some will refuse and opt out of presumed consent! The shortage is 90,000 in need of an organ, which means only 0.003% of the U.S. population would have to donate! In a presumed consent system, this is guaranteed. In Spain, 142% increase in organs and Spain is certainly more applicable to the U.S. than Iran (lol).

Black Market:
Meaningless argument since the shortage can be solved without a market. Plus, no impact was shown in the status quo.

Voters:

Unnecessary Risks:
1.35% of paid kidneys fail, 5% unpaid fail. He is just wrong, this is in the case of free markets, by definition. The impact is clear: HE ASSUMES THAT IF PEOPLE KNOW THE RISK OF (1) 35% FAILURE RATE AND (2) SIGNIFICANT DISEASE THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT THE ORGANS. All of the evidence says otherwise.
2.The window period evidence is recent and the diseases happen now (my evidence is from 2005 his was 1995). In fact, when hospitals eliminated paid blood from their banks (in 2005), their disease rates dropped significantly (see above). The window period HAS NOT BEEN SOLVED and a systemic analysis of 35 years I provided proves this, he provides no evidence (except from 1995). The disparity between hepatitis for paid and unpaid is 85% vs 0%.

Lack of solvency
1.No evidence that says market works IN THE U.S. I have given evidence from Harvard to think it would not (6% vs 9%) which he just asserts is “wrong”
2.I have solvency outside of a market, both in the status quo and in alternatives. Presumed consent increases donations by 142%. He just makes assertions, I provide evidence. Moreover, in the status quo, the trend is increases with altruism, whereas the evidence says that less people would donate in a market.
3. Spain outweighs Iran on comparisons since Iranians likely need money more than Americans and are therefore more willing to sell their body parts.
LaissezFaire

Pro

BOP:
Not introducing any new arguments here, just refer to my Round 2.

Self-Ownership:

1. People have no such “right” to know they won’t get a diseased organ. If they are told the risks, and accept them, there is no rights violation involved.
2. See 1. Is it an act of aggression if the transplant surgery itself goes wrong, making the doctor a criminal? No, because the patient accepted that there are risks and consented to them.
3. Yes it does, if you must necessarily be controlling X to engage in discourse. Which is the case—you must control your entire body in order to be using any part of it.
4. It doesn’t matter if the argument provides desirable outcomes. If it’s correct, it shows that I don’t need desirable outcomes. I’m not “assuming” non-consequentialism, I’m proving it.

Statistics:
1. That source was not my evidence against your “window-period”—that was just me showing that the source Con used earlier did not say what he said it did. My argument against the window-period was the fact that tests have changed. Tests for antibodies do have a significant window period, because there is time in between when the someone is infected with a virus and when the body produces antibodies. But now, as I said, we have tests for the actual viral RNA, which, of course, is present as long as the virus is. Basic biology—if there’s a viral infection, there are viruses, and therefore viral RNA. Which is why people don’t get HIV or hepatitis from blood transfusions anymore, which is why Con can’t cite any recent statistics. Surely, if high rates of hepatitis in blood infections continued today, there would be data from the past year or two. Since Con dropped this argument entirely, he conceded it, which concedes his entire window period argument.
2. See 1.

Punishment:
I did not drop that it was an unnecessary risk. Unnecessary implies that there are other, safer options for everyone, which simply is not the case. See below.

Status Quo:
I showed that it worked in Iran—an experiment. There was a shortage, a market was introduced, and now there isn’t a shortage.
I don’t need to refute his other evidence because it doesn’t prove what he says it proves. Unless Con can show that the rate of increase will continue, which he failed to do, those statistics prove nothing.

Deceased Donations:
Here, my opponent again asserts that what he provided was “evidence.” It is not. It would only be evidence of what he says if there were financial incentives offered for dead bodies in addition to the incentives given to living people, which wasn’t the case in Iran, the area studied.

And obviously only living people want monetary incentives, which is why I suggested offering the incentives to the families of the deceased, not the dead people themselves. Con never attempted to refute this point—he just misinterpreted and ignored it, repeating his fake evidence.

Shortage:
1. As Con said, we only need .003% of the country to donate organs. The 6% who said they would donate with incentives would be more than enough to meet that demand. I’m sure only a minority of Iranians would be willing to donate organs for money too—but only a minority was needed, which is why they solved their kidney shortage.
2. Americans are richer than Iranians? Then the price for organs would be higher. Problem solved. I make no dubious assumptions here.
3. It doesn’t matter that foreigners coming here wouldn’t solve the problem. Let’s say we barred foreigners from the country, and without them, the shortage was solved. Then we let them come in, and the shortage comes back. So what? The same amount of lives are saved either way. And why wouldn’t people come here to sell organs? Millions of poor Latin American immigrants come here for work—why wouldn’t some of them also sell a kidney?
4. Here, Con’s argument actually works against him. We regain blood, and it’s easy to donate, so it’s easy for people to be altruistic. It’s harder with a major surgery like a kidney donation. People are willing to be altruistic with their kidney to save a friend or family member, but very few do it for a stranger.
5. Con drops my evidence showing that the increase in donations because of presumed consent is low, when comparing all presumed consent countries to all informed consent countries. This outweighs his anecdote about a single country. There’s no reason to accept the results of a single country over the average results of presumed consent everywhere it’s been tried.

Black Market:
Again, I’d like to point out that Con has provided ZERO evidence that the organ shortage can be solved without a market. There are some changes that could help, sure, but absolutely nothing suggests that it can be solved.

Unnecessary Risks:
1. “HE ASSUMES THAT IF PEOPLE KNOW THE RISK OF (1) 35% FAILURE RATE AND (2) SIGNIFICANT DISEASE THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT THE ORGANS.” I assume no such thing. Some people would, some wouldn’t. My point is that if they know the risks, people have the RIGHT to accept the organs, if they want.
2. Again, my point about the viral RNA testing was not in the 1995 evidence—that was a completely separate point. Con ignored my argument about viral RNA testing, relying on past evidence of antibody testing (which did have a significant window period). By dropping this point, he’s conceded the entire argument about disease.

Solvency:
1. See Shortage: 1.
2. He cites presumed consent statistics from a single country—I countered by showing that when looking at EVERY country with presumed consent, together, it hasn’t solved organ shortages or even increased donations by all that much. It’s Spain vs. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. There are always outliers—they don’t mean anything, it’s the data set as a whole that counts.
3. Con provides no evidence of this. This is only self-evidently true at the price Iranians sell their organs for. If Americans are more resistant to selling their organs, then the price would just increase.

Conclusion:
1. My self-ownership argument stands. People have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.
2. Con conceded his entire disease argument when he dropped my point about new testing—how we can test for viral RNA now, rather than just antibodies the body produces.
3. Con provides no evidence that the shortage could be solved in the status quo. He simply assumes that recent increases in donations will increase indefinitely, until the shortage is solved, without any evidence or logic to back it up. He drops the point about presumed consent by failing to respond to the evidence from ALL presumed consent countries, instead choosing to just repeat his single data point from Spain.
4. Con repeatedly states that he’s provided evidence that legalizing organ markets would lead to a decrease in cadaveric donations, which is not the case. The evidence he provided only showed that if you legalize the sale of just kidneys, living donations go up while cadaveric ones go down. But since that’s not what we’re debating, it doesn’t matter. He only responds to my point about financial incentives for deceased donations by noting that “The incentive to get money is only relevant when someone is alive!” which completely fails to respond to what I actually said, which was “allowing payment for cadavers would create a huge incentive for families to allow those cadavers to be donated.”
5. Con’s only other rebuttal to the Iran evidence was a misuse of statistics, and saying that it only worked in Iran because Iran is poorer than the U.S. There’s no reason to think markets would work in Iran but not here—the prices would just be higher. Even in a rich country like America, 6% of people said they’d be more likely to donate if there were incentives—which is more than enough.
Debate Round No. 4
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Yes, you have already stated your view on appeals to authority I am simply asking you a followup question,"

The follow up question has no point. I already explained why appeals to authority are bad for debate. Your attempt to decontextualize is just a red herring attempt to corner me and achieve some minor victory for yourself. "Ha ha Sieben accepts appeals to authority in real life but not in debate. What a hypocrite!".

Zzzzzzzzzzzz what's the point in talking to you if you're just going to drop arguments as soon as you lose them? You just come back with new tangentially related ones, skewing the conversation further and further away from its starting point until you think you have some advantage.
Inb4 the goalposts change again.

"Sieben, which of the two specific arguments cited used to support the assertion concerning homeopathy provide stronger justification (a) the one which is a logical fallacy or (b) the one which is not."

They are both logical fallacies because they both involve an appeal to authority. If you run the test yourself, you are asking us to take your word on it that you are correct. If peer reviewed scientists ran the test, you are asking us to take their word on it that it is correct.

I already said that "the sky is blue" can be an appeal to authority if you're asking us to judge its validity by its source. How much clearer do I have to make this?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Yes, you have already stated your view on appeals to authority I am simply asking you a followup question, I'll repeat it :

"Sieben, which of the two specific arguments cited used to support the assertion concerning homeopathy provide stronger justification (a) the one which is a logical fallacy or (b) the one which is not."

Note this is not of course a concession that it is a logical fallacy, I am just noting your interpretation.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Sieben, which of the two specific arguments cited used to support the assertion concerning homeopathy provide stronger justification (a) the one which is a logical fallacy or (b) the one which is not."

Do you know what a debate is? You use arguments to support your case. My problem with appeals to authority isn't simply that they're logical fallacies, its that they shift the argumentative burden to an external website and then pretend like they've shouldered it because said website is authoritative.

So when you say "hur hur this study is peer reviewed", that is an appeal to authority. If you shouldered the argumentative burden and said "This study was conducted under XYZ controls with ABC variables and had QED results", it wouldn't matter if you conducted it yourself or got a professor to do it. Exposition and transparency are the only keys in debate.

Now IRL if I know NOTHING ELSE (<-- read that), I might prefer peer review studies simply because of inductive logic. This is different from debate because debate is a contest of argumentation. So in real life I am not necessarily looking for good arguments, but in debate I am.

Also thanks for dropping the definition of appeal to authority :(

Also thanks for voting on debates without ever being able to defend your RFDs which seldom make any sense :(
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
""P is the case because Dr. A says so" is an appeal to authority because there is not an epistemologically sound relationship between Dr. A's beliefs and what is the case. I think that this distinction is clear and simple."

Yes, I would agree if there was no such relationship then it is fallacious to claim it supports the conclusion.

"Whether a scientist or I preformed an experiment (assuming we both did it properly) does not affect the value of the result, only the experiment does. "

What exactly do you mean by value - merit for justification?

The thing is that the bracketed part is the problem, if it was not there then you would not need peer review or even ever call for verification of experiment.

If you cite an experiment you did I have no ability to know if you did it or did you account for the influences if you did as it isn't like you are going to describe that level of detail, you don't even find it in the published papers unless you are reading methodology from NIST. I would argue peer review increases justification strength as the chance of black data (made up) is lower, and repeated observation increases it further unless you argue collusion.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Also, I could argue about math without any appeals to authority, and this example explains my point very well. If I copy-paste Gerald Lambeau's proofs, they are as valid as if I had written them myself. On the other hand, if I said my conclusion was correct because Lambeau said so I would clearly be committing a fallacy.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Cliff - That is not the kind of "appeal to authority" that I am criticizing. Presenting data is not an appeal to authority because the validity of the data is not dependent on who presents the argument. Whether a scientist or I preformed an experiment (assuming we both did it properly) does not affect the value of the result, only the experiment does. So saying "Experiment X preformed by Dr. A indicated that P correlates with Q [link to paper]" is not an appeal to authority because it matters what Experiment X is (and there is or at least should be an epistemologically sound relationship between Experiment X and whether P implies Q) and not who Dr. A is. "P is the case because Dr. A says so" is an appeal to authority because there is not an epistemologically sound relationship between Dr. A's beliefs and what is the case. I think that this distinction is clear and simple.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Sieben, which of the two specific arguments cited used to support the assertion concerning homeopathy provide stronger justification (a) the one which is a logical fallacy or (b) the one which is not.
Posted by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
"Again if you label this as the same logical fallacy then I can call it against you every time you use a dictionary, or argue any point of math, science etc. . As an aside the only way to not do this would be if you did the experiment yourself, but why would I possibly give that more credit than a peer reviewed, credentialed, etc. source."

Circular logic. Yes using a dictionary to define a word is an appeal to authority. If you use wikipedia to prove that the sky is blue it is an appeal to authority. You are just getting confused with deductive logic and inductive plausibility.

"If someone asks does homeopathy work and I post a list of double blind peer reviewed studies which show it has no effect you would actually say that is a fallacious argument? But if I gave a list of an experiment I did myself, never submitted for review, you would say that is not fallacious? This makes sense to you?"

http://en.wikipedia.org... So yes. Saying that because something is peer reviewed is appealing to the authority of peer review. Here's a hint - if you are not using deductive logic AND relying on authoritative institutions, you are probably making an appeal to authority.

See, I try to use the wikipedia article definitions of things. You can cherry pick unrigorous liberal arts definitions if you want to be a clown. Just like you used a holocaust website to define "red herring" a while ago.

Its just down syndrome central with you cliff. You are wrong about the simplest things. No one can make you accountable for your votes when you ­fu­ck over people because you just run away. Sounds like you're a sniveling little f­ag­got.

I don't even know why you bother trying to attack me anyway. It'll always end badly for you. Only other retards like Ex Nihilo will fall behind you because they have no brain or dignity. Feels bad man?
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
Also, Sieben criticized you for appeals to authority in his RFD, but said it wasn't part of his decision since I didn't mention it, so it really doesn't matter.
Posted by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
Oh, are we talking about this again? If so, I'll just repost my favorite part of the comments section:

*ExNihilo quoting Cody- "Pure and simple, Pro was right. Most of Con's sources didn't say what he wanted them to say, and the "recent" evidence argument, though lightly countered by Con with the 2002 evidence, came back a lot stronger when Pro pointed out the dropped analysis in areas like scanning for viral RNA and the basically zero chance of getting things like HIV via blood transfusions."

*ExNihilo- ^ Did you even read the debate? Because there was also the 2005 evidence that had nothing to do with HIV. In fact, I challenge you to point out one spot where I even mentioned HIV. It was hepatitis that I mentioned. So you are just incapable of remembering sources, or you vote bombed.

*Cody, quoting me- "But now, as I said, we have tests for the actual viral RNA, which, of course, is present as long as the virus is. Basic biology—if there's a viral infection, there are viruses, and therefore viral RNA. Which is why people don't get HIV or hepatitis from blood transfusions anymore, which is why Con can't cite any recent statistics. Surely, if high rates of hepatitis in blood infections continued today, there would be data from the past year or two. Since Con dropped this argument entirely, he conceded it, which concedes his entire window period argument."

*Cody- tl;dr you're a f*cking moron and have been votebombing debates of mine, Sieben's, and LF's to get revenge on us.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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: RNA testing and the fact Ex didnt respond adaquetly to discourse ethics and property ownership.
Vote Placed by askbob 5 years ago
askbob
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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 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: thett needs to remove his counter. Siebens is not a votebomb but a counter of DimittrC. Who says his RFD "refer to comments" however he never posts a RFD in the comments section. Therefore Siebens counter is valid. thett3's is invalid
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Sibens votebomb.
Vote Placed by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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: Comments - I originally voted 3 but since Dimitri wants to be a little dipshit and ruin the voting system, I changed to 7 trolololol
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Refer to comments.
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD coming in comments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ExNihiloLaissezFaireTied
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 read through this a few times as it was very close on argument. In the end I would give it 3:2 to Con because while both sides at times would make assertions without full justification it seemed more of a stretch for Pro who started by simply stating discourse ethics. As an general comment though there is simply too much informtion in this debate to fully develop the arguments especialy as they are presented from two completely opposing viewpoints.