The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

April PFD Topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,116 times Debate No: 16000
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




The resolution is, "Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation."

The rules are standard NFL PFD rules, and can be read in the [1]link below for any-one unfamiliar with the rules.

The format is obviously adapted to this site's layout.
Round 1 is for acceptance and clarification
Round 2 is for constructive speeches, and constructive speeches alone. (No attacks made here)
Round 3 is for attacking your opponent's case. Nothing else.
Round 4 is for refutation of attacks made, and extensions
Round 5 is for voters.

That said, here's to a fun debate


Thank you for choosing this topic, because it is highly controversial and has many sides.

Although I disagree on your definition for Round 5,
I also thank you for setting up the standards and scaffolding to this debate.

As you have stated in the first round, this round is for acceptance and clarification only, so this will be all I can do.

I hope this will be enjoyable for both of us,
thank you
Debate Round No. 1


Before going into my construtive; I want to say that the round structure is non-negotiable at this point. Had this issue been protested prior to acceptance, I would have more than willing to compromise as to make this experiance as closely related to PFD debate as possible.


Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation.

When looking at this resolution, there are a few things that come to mind that should be stated for clarification

OBS_1: The resolution uses the word "Permit", This is very important because this will in fact scope the way this debate is debated. The resolution never states that the funding for the financial incentives would come from federal sources, it simply says to permit these incentives. What we are arguing here is whether or not funding should be permitted to be given as financial incentive.

OBS_2: The resolution uses the word "encourage" which signifies that not only would organ donation be completely voluntary, but that there is a need for organ donation in our society. I will expand upon the need for donation and donation being voluntary later on as needed.

With these things in perspective of the resolution, I will now present three independent arguments. If any one of them is true, then the resolution is true, and the vote must be to the Pro.

Argument 1: There is a need for organ donors in our society-

[1] "...Despite the number of transplants, there are still not enough donor organs to fill the needs of those who require them. As of October 19, 2005, more than 89,790 people were on the waiting list for a suitable donor organ. More than 12,700 people wait five or more years to get a matching organ. Experts with Donate Life, a government-sponsored educational organization, estimate 17 people die every day because they are unable to get a donor organ in time."

[2] "Each month, 1,000 people are added to the national organ transplant waiting list, which tops more than 75,000. Nearly half of the patients die waiting for a life-saving transplant.

Although 89 percent of the U.S. population favors donation, only 1 in 4 consent - leaving the rate of donation around 5,000 a year, far below the demand."

[2]"When a body is donated for transplant more than 100 people can benefit. Not only are organs used, but bones and tissues are also valuable life-enhancing transplants. More than 600,000 people benefit each year from tissue transplants, while more than 45,000 have better vision each year because of corneal transplants."

Now if we where to give out financial incentives for donation whether it be from an individual, charity, or hospital; this number would most assuredly go up. The impact here, is that there would not be nearly as many deaths because of something so avoidable.

Argument 2: Making organ donation taboo costs lives-

There are many, many, MANY, rumors surrounding Organ donation; and almost all of them are false. The only reason I even bother to say "almost" is that I don't know all of the rumors about this process, [3] but we can look at some of the most common. Here are a few myths, and the truths behind them;

Myth 1: "If I agree to donate my organs, the attending physician or emergency room staff won't try to save my life. They'll remove my organs as soon as possible to save somebody else"
Truth 1: When in such a situation doctors bound not only by their Hippocratic oath, but common ethics to save your life; not someone else's

Myth 2: "What if I'm not actually dead when they sign my death certificate? It'll be too late for me if they've taken my organs for transplantation. I might have otherwise recovered."
Truth 2: Physicians are not going to declare a person dead with-out first going through the proper procedures

Myth 3: "I want or my loved one wants to have an open-casket funeral. That can't happen if his or her organs or tissues have been donated."
Truth 3: For an open casket funeral, the body is only seen up to the middle torso, so signs of organ, or tissue transplants aren't going to be visible; For cornea transplants, glass is inserted and the eyelids are sealed shut during the embalming process; and for bone transplants, metal rods are inserted wherever the bones are taken from to maintain form.

There are many other common myths, but I think these prove my point just fine; because of the "he said, she said" nature of myth and rumor surrounding organ donation, millions of people die needlessly every year. However by offering financial incentives, and proper organ donation education to possible donors, we can not only dispel these nasty rumors; but again, we will save lives.

Argument 3: Organs not donated, are wasted-

[4]When a person dies, their body is treated and goes through a process known as "embalming". In this process, the body is completely drained of all it's blood, lymph, and other bodily fluids; is injected with a chemical known as "formaldehyde" or other preservative chemical to help the body from decomposing.
Not only is the body not kept in it's natural state at the time burial, but this is a complete waste of perfectly good blood that may well have saved another person's life through a blood or plasma transfusion.

After this, an incision is made in the lower abdomen, and the contents of the stomach, and intestines are removed; the organs are then aspirated, or dried out, and full strength embalming fluid is pumped into the organs and abdominal area.
Again, the body is not kept in it's natural state; but the organs are decimated for the purpose of preservation, and otherwise life saving organs are destroyed.

Now the impacts here, are not only is embalming mandatory prior to burial; but it is also rather expensive. By giving financial incentives to organ donors, the costs of funerals will be greatly lessened for families. However definitely an even larger impact is the saving of lives.

Thus vote pro, and save lives.


Thank you

The topic states: Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation

All I need to prove is that financial incentives, if permitted, will not change, or even worsen the status quo. meaning that either financial incentives will not increase donations, or they will be harmful.

The Pro needs to prove that financial incentives will solve our organ shortages.

Financial incentives for organ donation: ANY kind of incentives, relating to money, that might encourage someone to donate their organ. These incentives could include direct payment, tax credits, funeral coverage, etc. etc.

Argument 1: financial incentives will not work

First, no one wants to donate
According to The National Kidney Foundation (
In a recent survey of families who refused to donate organs of their loved ones who have died, 92% said that payment would not have persuaded them to donate.
This means that, even if incentives were legalized, it will not do anything in the path of encouraging donors. Thus, permitting it would be pointless.

Second, wile there is concern that there is an organ shortage, that concern in itself does not represent an argument in favor of vending, because it is quite unclear that a vending-based system would be effective and it could well be destructive. There is no reason to use incentives; it will not work. It can actually do the opposite, and be harmful to society.

Third, it will decrease donations.

According to the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, November 2006,
Organ selling would distort and undermine the altruism and common citizenship on which our whole organ donation system currently relies on.
This means incentives would not increase the number of donors. It would only cause all altruistic donors to leave, causing a greater organ shortage than ever before.

Argument 2: States rights
This is not a Federal Issue. By permitting the use of financial incentives, the Federal government is basically saying that it has a say in organ donation, which is an issue of the state. The tenth Amendment, states have the say in all issues that the Constitution doesn't give to the Federal government, and Organ donation is not an issue given to the Federal government. Even though it is permitting, because it would be the first legislation on organ donation, the Federal government would be violating states rights on the issue of organ donation.

Argument 3: Alternatives
First, regenerating organs
According to Harvard University,

We can take tissue from a damaged organ, such as a urethra or a blood vessel, split the organ into different cell types. With these cells, we can grow, and duplicate organs using molds. We can use the molds and scaffolds to make organs, and then insert it inside the patient. Soon, the scaffolding can degrade, leaving the patient a flawless new organ. In just months, we will be able to heal patients quickly and efficiently.

Second, organ printers

A Missouri professor took several types of chicken heart cells and 3D printed them into large sheets with cell-friendly gel. The cells took over from there, sorting themselves into working order. Then they began beating, just as a heart would. Technology is already being developed for human organ printing. With the introduction of this new development, we will not need incentives, which we know is harmful.

Argument 4: Morality

First, devaluating human life
According to the national kidney foundation,March,2011,
Direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation are inconsistent with our values as a society. This means, by treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we wish to save.

Second, insulting previous donors
According to the New York Times, 2011,
Providing any form of compensation for organs may be an affront to the thousands of donor families and living donors who have already made an altruistic gift of life and it could alienate Americans who are prepared to donate life saving organs out of humanitarian concern.
This means, paying for organs will be insulting the thousands of people who donated their organ, or even gave up their lives to save lives, purely out of concern.

Argument 5: Exploitation

First Disadvantaged Donors Manipulated
According to: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Nov 2006
The only donors who would go for the financial incentives would the vulnerable and disadvantaged. How could we be sure that paid donors were not being manipulated or even blackmailed?
This means The poor would be most likely to donate, and they would be treated unfairly. In a society where poverty exists everywhere, we do not want that.

Second Exploiting the Poor
According to: The National Kidney Foundation, March 3, 2011
Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation.
This means Since the poor and disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation are manipulation and exploitation.

Finally Broken Agreements
According to: 2010; Gale Group Databases
Rich patients in need of organs take advantage of the worlds poor. Promises of cash rewards for donations are sometimes not kept and when they are kept, they can be far less than agreed upon.
This means Given these disparities, legal organ trade will always lead to the exploitation of impoverished donors.

In conclusion, financial incentives will not solve the organ shortage crisis, and will certainly do more harm than good, since it didnt do any good.

So for all these reasons, please vote for the negation side of this debate
Debate Round No. 2


PFD_Debater forfeited this round.


Since my opponent forfeited the round, he loses, and is disqualified from any further rounds

I will continue for the enjoyment and learning experience of the audience.

For my opponent's first argument, he said that people are in need of organs.
OF COURSE! It is common knowledge that the world has a severe organ shortage, with more people dying each day.
But we can't use financial incentives to solve those shortages.
Nowhere in the argument has my opponent sated that financial incentives will go anywhere near to solving our organ shortage, which is the whole idea of this topic. This leads to my argument of alternatives, such as organ printers, which can produce more organs, risk free.

Argument 2: Making organ donations taboo costs lives
Again, this has nothing to do with financial incentives. Organ donation is allowed and encouraged.
My opponent says that organ donations were not as frightening as people thought
However, this is not the concern. however people precept the process of donating organs, it has nothing to do with financial incentives. My opponent has not proved any point through this argument

Argument 3: Organ snot donated are wasted
True, people should donate organs. But how will we encourage these peopled do so? Not through financial incentives for sure, because my opponent did not even mention anything related to it in this argument. This only emphasises that our society needs more organs. Financial incentives will not help at all, because, as I stated in my own contentions, legalizing it will actually dismiss altruistic donors, leaving the world with a even greater organ shortage.

Please vote for the con
Thank You
Debate Round No. 3


I am incredible sorry about having to forfeit my last round.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to finish writing out my attacks against my opponent's case.

I am deeply sorry to my opponent, and ask that he voters allot him the vote in this debate.

Again, I am deeply sorry.


Its fine, happens a lot in this website.

Ill Continue in the next round
Debate Round No. 4


Again, I am incredibly sorry.
Vote Con.


Thank you. Again, no harm done, no hard feelings.

Because of all the reasons i have stated above, please vote for the CON
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by PFD_Debater 7 years ago
Luck duck, the debate season is over for the year where I'm at :P.
Posted by themonkeyman 7 years ago
Hahahaha yea we recently had a tournament for this topic
Posted by PFD_Debater 7 years ago
Dang! Lot's of content to your speech :D
I'm very happy to see that!

I'm going to take my time with this!
Posted by PFD_Debater 7 years ago
Dang! Lot's of content to your speech :D
I'm very happy to see that!

I'm going to take my time with this!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 2 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited one round all together and didn't make arguments in the final rounds