The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Peili
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

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 2 votes the winner is...
Peili
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 61703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it's the only fair way to do things
Peili

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

duly noted
Peili

Con

Well, I was hoping for more of an opening argument from pro than "It"s the only fair way to do things." Still, there are at least two central reasons why we should not limit organ transplants to organ donors.

1. It"s not really fair.

Not everyone can be an organ donor. For instance, people with an HIV infection, active cancer, or systemic infection are unconditionally denied from being organ donors. However, modern medicine has made it so that none of these are a death sentence. People can recover from active cancer. With proper medication people can live a full life while controlling an HIV infection. Some systemic infections, such as Sickle cell disease, are inherited illnesses which a person can live with throughout his or her life.

However, in each of these cases the individual is barred from being an organ donor. By accepting this resolution we would be saying that someone with such illnesses could not receive an organ transplant even though the transplant would extend the person"s life by many years, and it is not the individual"s fault that he or she is not an organ donor. This is in no way fair.

2. It lacks mercy.

Even if the resolution were fair (which have already shown how it is not), it still lacks mercy. Imagine that a fifteen-year-old boy needs an organ transplant but never got around to being an organ donor. Someone might argue that it is "fair" to let him die because he is not an organ donor. However, this reveals a heartless lack of compassion. Fairness has its place, but there times when we should abandon fairness for compassion. This resolution would not allow for that.

So, the resolution that only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants is neither fair nor merciful and should be rejected.

Source: http://www.organdonor.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

there are a lot of practical stuff that would need addressed, like the mentally handicap point where they can"t consent to being an organ donor.

i dont mean to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye... but when it comes down to who should get dibs, why should someone who wasn't a donor get dibs? there's a line of people who want the organs. why should the guy who wasn't an organ donor himself get dibs? he shouldn't... that's not the fair thing to do.

if we required people be donors, more people would sign up, and there'd be more organs for people. this would be overall better for that reason.

if a person doesnt want to be a donor, why should they get organs when they need em, when others need em? the fitting analogy is a free loader analogy. wanting something free without putting up anything in return. in a system where we donate organs, they aren't contributing at all. that is free rider.
Peili

Con

The "practical stuff" is what ruins this resolution. It is impractical. Pro keeps going back to the idea of being "fair." However many people, through no fault of their own, cannot be organ donors. To bar them from receiving organ transplants is entirely unfair. If our goal is to be fair then this resolution must fall.

I can understand not wanting "to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye" but it is tit for tat. There"s no way around that fact. Those who are willing and able to donate organs are able to receive organ transplants. Those who are unwilling or unable to be organ donors cannot receive organ transplants. That is "tit for tat."

Why should a person who is not an organ donor be allowed to receive an organ transplant? Returning to a point I made earlier, I have only one answer to this question: Compassion. Compassion is by its nature unfair, but it is often the right choice.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
FaustianJustice
dairygirl4u2cPeiliTied
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: The devil is in the details, and organ harvests are rife with them, as Con made note of.
Vote Placed by aburk903 3 years ago
aburk903
dairygirl4u2cPeiliTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided sources and used proper S/G while Pro did not. Pro logically wins by introducing complications to the absolutist proposal by Pro and by pointing out the moral complications of this rather vindictive proposal.