The Instigator
thenewguy124
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FlamePhoenix
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The USA should use a soft opt out system for 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 43155
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

thenewguy124

Pro

The first round should be for acceptance only. I am new to DDO but i have some actual debate experience. The soft organ donation system in this debate means that family members can call off the organ harvesting if they choose.
FlamePhoenix

Con

Hello Con and thank you for your participation. I do not believe that family members should be permitted to opt out of a person's OWN belief. Someone has chosen to do something, and why should anyone choose for them to not do that thing. Now, let us consider the need for this. Supposedly when an old or dying person chooses to donate organs, their family are heavily involved. The family have been involved with that decision, part of it. So why would their family want to wipe out what they were involved in creating? Plus, this is the dying wish of that person, or perhaps their one wish for when they do die- how sad would it be to practically throw that out of the window? Presumably, if that person had changed their mind, they would inform their family or doctor and things could be changed. Maybe a 'hard' opt out system would be better- people need these organs, so you can't just go running away with them- instead we could have it where, if someone had wished to withdraw their donation, or similar, whilst dying, their family can appeal for opting out.

I shall leave it here for now, I look forward to seeing your argument. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1
thenewguy124

Pro

First, thank for being my first opponent. :D
Because of the way you structured your first argument I assume you already know that opt out is better than opt in. The only thing that has to be proven is the soft opt out vs the real opt out.

1: Moral problems
The main reason why we need to have this safeguard is because many people have problems with the organ donation process. This is true because many types of religion and some peoples personal beliefs mean that they will opt out. The soft opt out is a political safeguard that will make it much easier to pass something like a better organ donation system. "The family have been involved with that decision, part of it. So why would their family want to wipe out what they were involved in creating?" This is not always the case. Deciding to be an organ donation right now is simply a box to check at the DMV. This is rarely a big decision and many people do miss it. The soft opt out will allow for those families to not be wronged. You talk about how poor it must be to have your life's work taken away but look at it as protecting the religion and beliefs that the family has lived by for as long as they have lived. "Presumably, if that person had changed their mind, they would inform their family or doctor and things could be changed." When people are dying these conversations do not usually come up. The doctors are trying to safe the patients life. Look to a scenario where a 25 year old man dies in a car crash. They cannot ask him but The fact that he has a family to depend on means that his family morals will not be infringed upon. I leave you with a poll on why the soft opt out works
According to the survey, 82 per cent of people want the key role of the family retained;

2: The extra organs would not be needed anyway due to small quantity
Singapore witnessed an increase of a massive 700 per cent in organ donations. The very small amount of people that decide to opt out their family members will not outweigh and will not cause a significnt loss in organs. We would have an organ surplus whether we decide to have a hard or soft opt out system(as we see in every EU country that has it).

We need to keep the soft opt out to make it morrally acceptable without taking any of the losses that an opt in system would have.

1 http://www.thejournal.ie... We can see here that Ireland is doing exactly what I am stating the US should do.

2 http://bma.org.uk...

I look forward to your arguments. :)
FlamePhoenix

Con

Hello Pro, I apologize for the first round acceptance only, I was a bit eager to get going and didn't see that! I thank you for your counterargument which I will now counter so to form a counter-attack upon your countery attack of my original post!

1: Moral problems
"The main reason why we need to have this safeguard is because many people have problems with the organ donation process. This is true because many types of religion and some peoples personal beliefs mean that they will opt out. "
You talk about how people may need to opt out for their personal reasons, such as religion or ethics. Well, in this case, they wouldn't sign up in the first place- why would they sign up for something they didn't believe in. You explain that this is just "simply a box to check at the DMV" I believe it's more likely Joe Average wouldn't check this box, if you're given a form and this is an option, you'll just leave it blank, not really sure, you don't want any extra hassle. I really cannot understand your belief that someone would check that box to sign up for organ donation if they didn't want their organs taken, unless they were ob the mental health ward... In your example of a young man in a car crash, you said: "The fact that he has a family to depend on means that his family morals will not be infringed upon" My key question here is: What do the family have to do with it? This man would have chosen his own morals, no matter his family, it's his personal choice what he would like to do, it is not up to his family to make those decisions for him; whether he is related or not to someone, that doesn't mean they can choose his personal morals. As for your final poll, I'd just like to say, polls can be very different to what actually happens, a poll is just what you call "A box to check"- keeping the role of family sounds like a positive option, which makes people vote for that more than the negative sounding option.

I would just like to take this opportunity to give my full definition of the soft opt out system, as no formal definition has yet been released other than your informal explanation. Soft opt out system- "Patients will NOT automatically be signed up for organ donation, but if they do sign up and show an interest, their family members can call off the donation after their death"

Based upon this principle, the donator has given full consent to have their organs donated, so why should anyone take that away from them? It's not like they can't realize, with all the paperwork they'd have to sign and fill out.

2: The extra organs would not be needed anyway due to small quantity
I fully acknowledge your point here and agree that, in some instances, there becomes little demand for organs, I feel getting more organs could be an issue, though, as we will have to find somewhere to store them; this could lead to political issues if national government is trying to pass organs onto the hands of statewide governments.

You can't have this system, because if someone believes in something, you simply can't take that choice away from them! We would then be bordering on negative rights- you can't tell someone they can't do something- their family shouldn't be able to!

1. http://www.edp24.co.uk...
Used this UK site for some interesting views about organ donation.

2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Thanks, look forward to your next argument, should be interesting!
Debate Round No. 2
thenewguy124

Pro

I would like to point out quickly that the opt out system means that they will automatically be signed up. This is where a lot of the problems in our debate come from.

1: Morals
"You talk about how people may need to opt out for their personal reasons, such as religion or ethics. Well, in this case, they wouldn't sign up in the first place." The problem is that they are automatically signed up and we need the chance for family members to opt out in order to make sure that these family morals will not be infringed upon.
"I believe it's more likely Joe Average wouldn't check this box, if you're given a form and this is an option, you'll just leave it blank, not really sure, you don't want any extra hassle." This person would have their organs harvested even if they did not wish it so. This is exactly the reason why we need a family presence in order to stop Joe Average from getting his rights taken away. "It is not up to his family to make those decisions for him; whether he is related or not to someone, that doesn't mean they can choose his personal morals." I am saying that if it is a big enough deal for someone to have wanted to pull back organ donation they would have discussed it and they would have come to a personal decision. Exact specifics on exemptions on other family members can be discussed later. If I can prove that family members at all need to be involved in this process then the soft opt out system would be in place.
"There are no fundamental ethical or legal barriers to introducing soft presumed consent legislation in the UK." The same article also points out how the highest donating nation uses a opt out system in Spain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2: You agree that we will have no shortage of organs. Your only concern is putting all the new organs we have in the proper place. There have been no problems with any of the countries in the EU that have tried this. Furthermore, this would not be a problem in the near future because of all the people we currently have on the organ donation list. http://pub.mtholyoke.edu...

3:"You can't have this system, because if someone believes in something, you simply can't take that choice away from them!"
It is the normal opt out that takes away these options and violates these moral standings. I would like to make this argument to clear up a problem that we have. You say that families do not have these rights but when you look to our current organ donation system the family already has these rights. You are advocating taking away these rights of the family, robbing the family to uphold its moral code that they have built upon.
FlamePhoenix

Con

FlamePhoenix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
thenewguy124

Pro

I am sad to see my opponent forfeit. Extend all arguments.
FlamePhoenix

Con

FlamePhoenix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by thenewguy124 3 years ago
thenewguy124
:( I was hoping this would be a good debate.
Posted by thenewguy124 3 years ago
thenewguy124
I can agree on a shared burden of proof.
Posted by FlamePhoenix 3 years ago
FlamePhoenix
Can we agree there will be a shared BOP for this debate?
Posted by FlamePhoenix 3 years ago
FlamePhoenix
Sorry, I didn't mean to put 'Hello Con'! I hope to see this debate develop, I look forward to your participation Pro.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Good debate topic, especially since there are two obvious angles con may take in opposing it (I hate debates where the instigator insists the other side must argue only from one slim dimension). The first of course being that things should stay more or less as they are (opt in organ donation), the second being family members not being able to opt someone out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.