THBT Regulated Markets for Human Organ Transplant Should be Illegal Worldwide
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
burden of proof is shared, no kritiks allowed, no new arguments last round.
People should not be able to sell their organs in any country through a legally sanctioned market, even as a personal decision.
This does not include a potential situation with agreeing to sell off your organs when you die.
Organ donation is the process of surgically removing an organ or tissue from one person (the organ donor) and placing it into another person (the recipient). Transplantation is necessary because the recipient’s organ has failed or has been damaged by disease or injury.
Organ transplantation is one of the great advances in modern medicine. Unfortunately, the need for organ donors is much greater than the number of people who actually donate. Every day in the United States, 21 people die waiting for an organ and more than 120,048 (www.unos.org, Nov. 1, 2016) men, women, and children await life-saving organ transplants.
What organs and tissues can be transplanted?
Organs and tissues that can be transplanted include:
Vascularized composite allografts (transplant of several structures that may include skin, bone, muscles, blood vessels, nerves, and connective tissue)
What Is a Regulated Market?
A regulated market is a market over which government bodies or, less commonly, industry or labor groups, exert a level of oversight and control. Market regulation is often controlled by the government and involves determining who can enter the market and the prices they may charge. The government body's primary function in a market economy is to regulate and monitor the financial and economic system.
How a Regulated Market Works
Regulation curtails the freedom of market participants or grants them special privileges. Regulations include rules regarding how goods and services can be marketed; what rights consumers have to demand refunds or replacements; safety standards for products, workplaces, food and drugs; mitigation of environmental and social impacts; and the level of control a given participant is allowed to assume over a market.
The FDA, SEC, and EPA are examples of U.S. regulatory bodies.
Ancient civilizations imposed rudimentary regulations on markets by standardizing weights and measures and providing punishments for theft and fraud. Since that time, regulations have mostly been imposed by governments, with exceptions: medieval guilds were trade bodies that strictly controlled access to given professions and defined the requirements and standards for practicing those professions. Beginning in the 20th century, labor groups have often played a more or less official role in regulating certain markets.
Examples of regulatory bodies in the U.S. include the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies derive their authority and their basic frameworks for regulation from legislation passed by Congress, but they are parts of the executive branch, and the White House appoints their leaders. They are often charged with creating the rules and regulations they enforce, based on the idea that Congress lacks the time, resources, or expertise to write regulation for every agency.
You’ll be fine.
oh, I see. well hopefully the voters won't notice I contradicted myself lol. I was trying to establish some better case but I realized it might be con's case.
Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if Pro could reasonably make the argument that it's better for the government to compensate organ donors in some way? Because, at least from what I understand of the resolution, it would not be possible, since you're shutting down the opportunity for a market to exist. If the government pays for it, then the government is creating a market, even if it's not subject to the usual market forces. There's a buyer and a seller, so that's a market.
pretty sure Mall didn't win with no sources of his own, but what about this approach? Is Gov Compensation usually good for pro side? Or is it a con thing with Gov buying from the market?