The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

resolved: a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,857 times Debate No: 62221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I affirm the resolved : a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement of the deceased .

my definitions for this round are

observation 1 the resolution is talking about a just society not just a random society. Since we are talking about "a" just society not society"s implicating we only talk about one

my value for today"s round is - life

and my criterion is - minimizing death

these two relate because the resolution allows organs be procured from the deceased
which would then help someone in need of an organ transplant . according to 2k14
"there are more than enough people waiting for an organ to fill a large football stadium twice over. about 18 people a day die while waiting for a organ transplant ."

contention 1 - organs save lives

Many people die every day when waiting on the organ transplant list.
organ donor 2 (

During your visit to someone may have been added to the waiting list. It happens every 10 minutes. Each day, an average of 79 people receive organ transplants. However, an average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs.
as of september 2014, 121,272 people are waiting for organ transplants and this number only increases .

With an average of 20 people dieing an day this number is declining as well as the population. the problem is that about 30,000 transplant happen a year because of organ shortages which means that if we can get organs from the deceased the number of transplants we can increase the number of organ transplants a year ultimately saving more lives . which can tie back to my value of saving lives because we can get people off the waiting list for organ donations and go on to other patients in need of a organ which would increase the lives saved from numerous diseases , but we can prevent this by presuming that the diseased ahs give us consent to procure his organs .

contention 2 : Doctors and nurses have obligations to take care of their patients.

The answer is nothing when a person dies he has no use of his organs. when a person is dead his heart stops pumping blood and he has no use for his heart anymore . when an person is dead he is dead doing anything you do to him will not affect him anyway. but if a living person is dying of a disease that affects a organ and the only way to save him is to transplant a organ into him . but what if they do not have a organ to transplant . in order to save his life they must take from the deceased .

hippocrates (hippocrates of cos , ancient greek physician wrote the hippocratic oath)

1960 version

Make the care of your patient your first concern.
Protect and promote the health of patients and the public.
Provide a good standard of practice and care:
Keep your professional knowledge and skills up to date.
Recognise and work within the limits of your competence.
Work with colleagues in the ways that best serve patients' interests.
Treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity:
Treat patients politely and considerately.
Respect patients' right to confidentiality.
this basically states that the doctor or nurse must do whatever in their power to save a life even if that is taking organs from an deceased person to save ones life.

contention 3 Veil of ignorance says we ought to take care for the least well-off.
any day at any time you could wake up with an disease that would leave you on the waiting list for a organ now what if they didn't have a organ to give to you . wouldn't you want the doctor to do whatever to save your live . and naturally want to get a organ from an deceased person to save your life because lets be honest what do deceased humans need organs for . this way of thinking is called the veil of ignorance.
John Rawls (John Rawls , American philosopher) 1921
In his book, A Theory Of Justice, Rawls asks us to imagine a fantastic scene: a group of people are gathered to plan their own future society, hammering out the details of what will basically become a Social Contract. Rawls calls this the "Original Position." In the Original Position, the future citizens do not yet know what part they will play in their upcoming society. They must design their society behind what Rawls calls the Veil Of Ignorance.
"No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."

this is basically the idea that anyone can wake up one day and be someone they are not . an rich man can be poor and an poor man can be rich. the same as an healthy man can become sick at any given moment in time. so this theory is basically forgetting who you are and acting as if you were the one in need .
in conclusion i affirm todays resolution . resolved a just society ought to presume consent for the following three reasons.


I thank my opponent for beggining this debate, and look forward to an intruiging discusion.

To specify, my opponent refers to a sitation in which the deceased has not clarified whether they would like to donate their organs. The position I am taking is that a just society should not harvest their organs for donation without written or filial consent. I will loosely be responding to my opponent's contention-conclusion format, while making additional points. To remind readers, they are:

C1. Organs/Organ Donation Saves Lives
C2. The Medical World Must Take Care of Their Patients
C: Therefore, Unless Opted Out, the Organs of a Cadaver Must be Used for Medical Purposes

"Minimizing Death":

While this phrase is incredibly vague to the point of being almost meaningless, it is no doubt a worthy goal to reduce casualties, and it is also hard to argue hat organ donations don't save lives. So both of those things are true. However, if our criterion is to minimize death by forcibly and legally removing parts of the body, why wait until death? Why not sign a law into effect requiring the offering of, say, a kidney, which we don't really need two of anyway? (1) It involves the violation of the body by law, and will save lives.

The point I am demonstrating here is that this alternate solution, which almost noone would concur with, is exactly what my opponent is suggesting: the disbanding, the mulitation, really, of the human body, by neither personal consent nor family-granted permission, but instead by the government. This reccomended law of mine is supported by the same contentions as my opponent's.

C1. Organs/Organ Donation Saves Lives
C2.The Medical World Must Take Care of Their Patients
C. Therefore, Unless Opted Out, People Must Surrender Their Non-Essential Organs for Medical Purposes

This is a matter of personal freedom, and a matter of the rights of the dead, and do not let the fact that something can save lives, readers, lure you into this kind of trap.

The State and The Body

To what extent may the government tell us what to do with our bodies? They may limit what actions we may take without repurcussions, and in extreme cases, they may force us to do something, like join the military, but they may not decide what is done to our bodies, or indeed parts of our bodies. And I see not why this should'nt apply in death as much as in life. The right to one's body is held sacred in all enlightened countries, and I find the idea of a body being handed over to the state for dissection, simply because they are not capable of refusing, a grotesque one.

Now, I am a materialist, meaning I do not believe anything comes of our mind or body after death, and I do see a certain fetishization of our empty corpses in society, but here even I must draw the line. In the unfortunate circumstance that a cadaver be recovered not possesing surviving family or a will and testament, the government must adhere to the accepted societal way of burial rites, and must respect the deceased's fundamental right to the security of their person. When someone agrees to be an organ donor, they essentially sacrifice any legal rights to their body when dead; any family members or guardians no longer hold any legal weight in deciding what becomes of the dead. (2) As a personal choice, this is perfectly reasonable, but when you make it mandatory, you are, in fact, stripping that person of their right to body. And that is unnaceptable.

As An Alternative

I would like to argue two things here:

1. Almost everybody is already asked to decide whether they would like to be an organ donor upon death.
2. Legislating a mandatory decision is better than a mandator sacrifice of body.

The first of these makes the point that the situation this debate is centered upon is already a rare one; a vast majority of citizens are asked the very question of organ donation when they get their driver's license. (3) Look at any license, and it will say whether the proprieter will give their organs up when dead. So already a massive proportion of the population are decided on the matter.

But instead of my opponent's disgusting solution for those with no clear choice, why not simply require every citizen, come a certain age, to list themselves as either an organ donor or not? The greatest problem I have with the proposition is a matter of consent, and to ask the consent, while albeit demanding an answer, is infinitely preferable to the government removing the question and taking the answer as "yes".

The Veil of Ignorance

This argument, asking the reader to place themselves in the shoes of needy, has always seemed quite "ad hominem" to me, no different in this case. If my life were threatened by a terribel disease, and the only cure was an organ transplant, it may be true my fear and emotion would overcome my reason, but that seems to possess no bearing on this debate. Would I rather my chance of survival be increased by taking the innards of an unidentified body then risk death by not doing so? No. It's that simple.

I will leave my argument here, and conclude briefly. There are many measures that could save lives, just as there are many measures that could reduce crime. That is no automatic justification, and this is a case where the rights of all outwight the needs of a few. I look forward to my opponent's response.

Debate Round No. 1


voltrusgaming forfeited this round.


Arguments Extended Through Round 2.
Debate Round No. 2


voltrusgaming forfeited this round.


Arguments Extended Through Final Round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by williamfoote 3 years ago
In contentions 1 and 2 it isn't proven that PC will solve these problems...
Posted by voltrusgaming 3 years ago
that would be what the negative would debate for
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
Question: In this supposed just society where organ harvesting is presumed, would one have to opt out if they wanted to be excluded from this, or is there simply no choice?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by KatieKat99 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I really didn?t buy the argument that everyone is already asked and we should make it mandatory thing that con brought up. Also Con you never provided any value or value criterion of your own so critiquing pros really didn?t make much sense to me. In a value round (which btw guys this is the LD topic for November so con you need to provide a value and criterion) So yeah basically my decision in a nutshell goes like this Pro won this debate even though they forfited because they had a much more logical and clear stance on the issue and followed correct format. Con you need to work on your tone significantly it felt fairly loose and informal which in some aspects cost you the round.