THBT Regulated Markets for Human Organs Should be Legal in UHC
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
With a lot of interesting plans for the pro side, I’m curious if it’s enough to overcome the con case. Standard definitions from Merriam Webster apply to this topic. Burden of proof is shared. No new arguments in the final round.
The regulated market in economics is oversaw by the government. They need to make laws and restrictions about how to sell, what to sell, so on and so forth, in order to allow people to sell safely.
Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions. Examples of organs include the eyes, ears, heart, lungs, and liver. (https://www.medicinenet.com/organ/definition.htm)
UHC: Universal Healthcare Countries [https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/hcra/univ_hlth_care.htm]. This doesn't include Cuba.
- Organ market system may earn up to billions of dollars in terms of net benefit
- Organ market will save lives, and solve problem of organ shortage
- The opponents of Organ market do not have a logical ethics argument to stand upon, while Pro has freedom for the people
Con comes up with an intriguing idea that supports the idea of libertarianism -- people ought to have the equality, and the rights offered to them. Firstly, notice how he implicitly concedes that our freedom to choose our body parts overcomes any human dignity arguments, so any mention of Kant's ideas would stab himself in the back. Next, he asserts our equality with zero backings in itself. "Equality" is very poorly defined -- is he arguing for communism with shared resources, which has never worked? When looking at his arguments, one still ought to think if there is a net benefit. I will argue that it is worth keeping a severe inequality if it saves lives overall. For example, let us say that even my government-sponsored $75,000 would not be enough to bring the person out of poverty. But it would not kill them either in most cases. Saving 5,000 lives from death far outweighs mere suffering.
Firstly, Con says the surgery develops kidney failure, yet his source notes that only 10 donors from 8 studies had this so-called failure, a remarkably small number compared to the patients suffering in my opening argument. Con also claims that the financial burdens are what causes the depression, yet his study highlights the reasons are far more complex, "including longer recovery, financial stressors, younger age, and moral obligation to donate may identify donors more likely to develop future depression, providing an opportunity for intervention". Not only so, but the conclusion also supports that only those with depressive problems would continue these problems further on: "the experience of a donation, often in the setting of a loved one’s illness, does not increase long-term depressive symptoms for most donors". Therefore, Con's claim falls apart.
Next, Con's source states: "No deaths occurred and no donors underwent lung transplantation during 4,000+ person-years of follow-up". Already, we see a disparity between the 5,000 death-per-year worlds and the relatively safe Pro world. So long as my framework stands, my case is strong.
Thirdly, QOL -- the big argument. At first, it seems unreasonable that at least 1/3 of people (from his own source) would have to be worse off than the rest due to their situation. But this all the more supports my giving of money. Of course, this may not be the only reward. Additional counseling and support may reduce this number. More importantly, his study says "despite the negative effect of recipient death on donor HRQOL, donors did not report “donation regret” even when recipient outcomes are poor". So clearly, even with knowing the risk, and the poor experience, they believed it was worth it. This supports my reversal of human dignity in my favor. You help out those in need, and you get a little something in return. They suffered but still did not regret it, shows that the organ market would value human dignity, heightening my stance on a moral level.
Con presents the problem in India that I have cursory knowledge about. Indeed, it seems that 85% regret statistic seems to disagree with his study's results. However, they complained about the difficulty in going back to work after donating the organ. The steps to solve this problem would be to focus on education so that organ donors would have more knowledge for their decision. We may also compensate by allowing people days off after donating their organs. There are also ways to focus on the staff and the delivery of the message to ensure full knowledge, with all the implications of organ donation, good and bad.
One study looks over the informed consent in the first person and notes that there are fixes to this problem. "...the stress of the consent environment can be mitigated before a potential donor is admitted through the seamless integration of OPO staff into hospital environments... . They are the only individuals, by law and by regulation, who can coordinate and advance the donation process. A positive donation culture can be achieved through an emphasis on organ donation as an integral component of end-of-life care and a commitment to employing data monitoring tools to evaluate performance and use of data for continuous quality improvement efforts".
Even the greater conversion rate from another study on "quality improvement" displays that we can sway over people better -- from 51% to 60%, a significant improvement-- and resolve the conflict of "I don't know, should I do it". All these problems are merely temporary due to the current set up and can be fixed with added policies that would only help further problems (such as donating blood, sperm, or other body parts).
Next, Con worries that the amount of money would disrespect the person's wishes, indirectly pointing out a restriction of freedoms. Once again, his research already offers a potential solution: "Worries about undue inducement can be reduced by careful assessment of risks as well as attention to eligibility criteria and the informed and voluntary consent of research subjects". Not to mention that we don't know if money is a unique motivator for people to die on their forms. His expert also agreed that "It is unknown how often such misrepresentation occurs in clinical research and also unclear whether money is uniquely capable of inducing this kind of deception. Perhaps we should worry more about the possibility of desperate patients engaging in deception if they perceive the therapeutic intervention or agent understudy to be their best or only remaining therapeutic option". As you can see, even though there remains a slight lingering risk, it is difficult to say that the organ market is the unique problem here, or that the risk is too severe. With additional screening in place, the minimal risk makes it difficult for the patient to make reckless decisions.
Con tells us that the Stanford article on Organ donation speaks of its inherent nature to be coercive. I see no mention of "inherent", and the only mention of "coercive" is to support my argument -- that people deserve the welfare and resources, and thus the dead's organs should be transferred. I ask con to explain this. As for the living age of the donor, I cannot see the difference between a free donation and a compensated donation, thus it is not unique.
Transplant tourism. Another big point. Though his source is from WHO, even the bulletin only mentions it draws sources from multiple newspapers, rather than rigorous studies or empirical analysis. On the contrary, a strong study notes that "prohibition has pushed the organ trade further underground increasing the role of organ brokers and reducing the bargaining position of organ sellers, leaving them exposed to greater levels of exploitation". I await Con to answer how "get rid of organ markets" *lessens* the exploitation. Because as far as I have proposed, the enforcement of the legal system potentially allows everyone to know how much their organs are worth, and what they should be treated. It's similar to how illegal drugs sell for absurdly high prices in the black market because they are ILLEGAL. Rarer things sell for higher prices. If Heroin was legal worldwide, the black market benefit would be little to none due to established market price (even if health impact is controversial). By contrast, Con's world lets poor people wander into the alligator's den with no way to exterminate the criminals. Finally, Con mentions the problem of the rich getting to the organs first, but does not object to my fact that we have eliminated the waiting list nearly entirely in Iran. Con tells us "justice" is more important than life but makes no support for this.
This is interesting but different types of compensation or rewards are arguably all different kinds of benefits given by some kind of market. Let's be honest, in a real free market, you can negotiate with nearly anything, not just money. An "IOU" deal could just as much befitting towards the trade as giving you a thousand dollars. Not to mention that reimbursement arguably has the same problem with coercion. A lot of poor people wouldn't understand perfectly what health insurance or life insurance covers. 75,000$ is easy to see and easy to get an idea of what it means. Giving you the "disability coverage" just seems like a cop-out, especially if we are talking about universal health care countries, which already give health care to their citizens. I'm not seeing what Con is solving from his problems.
Con's restriction of freedom argument is insignificant because we can fix it. On the other hand, his counterplan offers no unique benefit over just making organ trade the entire market, supplying the poor with money to get out of poverty.
Not only does the organ market save lives, but I have also shown that it values human dignity -- you bring attention to our need to solve the organ shortage. Regardless of the motivation, we achieved the desired result to save people and therefore managed to prove our respect for the patients. Not to mention, I resolve the black market exploitation problem.
- Each time Con presents a source, it offers a potential mitigation, and presents no unique harm of Organ markets.
- Con is grasping at straws by misrepresenting sources, not only mine but his own as well. Voters should take off points for this as we go on.
- Regardless of utilitarian or rights based arguments, I am winning the debate due to saving the poor and victims alike.
- In pro's world, we let you choose your own path with your life, even if it may be dangerous. Even if you died, you died for what you desired. In con's world, we restrict donors for unclear reasons and let the victims die, even if they did not want to. This is no different from murder.
Really my main advice is twofold:
- Just to directly quote from my RFD: "What PRO really needed to do was beef up a utilitarian framework from a philosophical deontology vs utilitarian point of view and then really just try and dwarf CON’s impacts."
- But also, you really should've hit hard on CON's idea of loss of autonomy with some libertarian-style philosophy.. Just because you've been offered a sum of money for something doesn't mean you are incapable of making rational decisions, and even if you aren't, it's not the governments job to be your mother. To quote the RFD again: "Should the government treat adults like children who can’t understand things even when explained to them in detail? Why shouldn’t the government give the information necessary for someone to make a decision, and then allow them to make that decision for themselves? Personal responsibility eventually has to take the reins, or else there is no limit to what the government could forbid for “our own good.”
(Also, I should probably stop playing devil's advocate in a ranked debate. I think my arguments are not as strong when I'm researching the opposing side, lol. It was good to see how to argue Con side however).
damn, looks like I was outdone despite my best efforts. Any additional advice, Mr. Chris?
Thank you for the thorough RFD! Glad someone got a vote up!
I understand that you're trying to justify your perspective, and I'd be happy to engage with you on this via DM, but all I'll say here is that I still disagree with how you're portraying what happened in this debate, even with these additional specifications.
I understand what you're thinking. Informed Consent seems big on the theoretical idea especially since Pro admitted that freedom was as important as life. But he stressed how we gain that specific decision, despite lack of information. You say we can never give enough information, and Pro countered that if this is the case, then it would be likely they would go in donating for free without information, which means more compensation is better. You added upon money's "unique coercion" factor, but Pro asks a few reducto ad absurdum arguments that put a lot of doubt in your case: "is Con going to somehow shut down all the jobs with financial gain and also containing a certain amount of danger? So Con wants people never to do anything where they can die or suffer great harm?" He accused you that your plan has the same logic as punishing people for suicide (purposefully putting themselves in danger when they can't think clearly, for their personal gains), and you didn't counter his fallacious arguments. I know they're flawed, but you didn't tell me why they're different from Pro's portrayal of "Gov gets to decide".
Pro separated your financial coercion and your informed consent -- I feel like they only work when combined together. In round 4 you basically gave up on economic coercion and instead stacked upon the idea of family coercion. That makes me feel the financial devil + no information is much weaker. I can understand how your argument works, but he sneakily unlinked your arguments with two separate worlds, which obviously doesn't make sense considering your case, but your linking only felt like there was some non-unique coercion with pro's case.
I appreciate the feedback, though this is one case when we're on pretty different pages about what happened in this debate. Maybe that's just because it's my argument, though as I do not wish to influence any potential voters, I'll abstain from providing specifics.
here's my personal thoughts, after reading it twice: Con's informed consent argument works very well combined with the idea that the regulation would still cause exploitation (though Pro seemed to desire to compare it to the status quo -- which completely illegalizes markets, so it's still freer). Pro has a lot of good impact negation because he highlighted that only those who wanted to donate, would be at risk. Then he noted your studies barely had any deaths or long term injuries, which you sadly mostly dropped at the end. The case still stands pretty strong if voters accept your framework, but it's hard to see why it defeats utilitarian/libertarianism. Pro didn't stretch it too far, and his framework put the market as a "win win" situation that seemed reasonable for the government. He kept trying to reason that "disability insurance" is even worse of a motivator than "$75,000" in terms of coercion. And I can't accept family because he states that honor pressuring will still exist in the no-compensation world, resulting in unsolved problems. In the end, if I had to vote it's extremely muddy in my opinion. Because you kind of gave up on the actual impacts, as ironic as that is, considering your voting is king of impacts. You didn't bother tackling how low the deaths were, which significantly weakens your case. And while Pro didn't outright say "we prevent people from getting another well deserved job", his question framed it in a way that infers "Con must somehow also prevent workers from going to hazardous construction sites". This is probably a tie for me.
planning on voting. I'll get started today
I know gugigor/seldiora already pinged you but there’s only four days left. Hurry hurry!
you voted on my other debate. Up for the challenge on this one?
feel free to take a stab at a vote. I have bias towards Pro (and likely jump to support many of his refutations) so I will probably not be voting on this one
After voting is done, I will post my thoughts on a good Pro stance here, especially as I think I've had a pretty productive discussion with Undefeatable about it. I find this to be a strong topic with decent balance, but I do think it skews Pro just a tad. Not that that changes my mind.
Keeping it simple is the strategy for Pro (though no, I don't think that a free market system improves your case), while heaping loads of complicated on Con. We can get into how that works, but with people set to vote on this, I don't really want to influence their thinking by providing other potential strategies you could have used and how I would have tried to address them. How about we do this via DM?
BTW, what are the strategies for pro? I did some research into flaws of Con and the proposal given with government payment, but I know the problems of placing too many restrictions. Should the premise be "free market" instead to favor pro? Or is there another sneaky argument?
I don't want to influence your vote, though some of this is starting to spin a little away from the debate we had. The "what if" scenario might have been interesting if it had been presented. I have responses, but I don't want to give them here as it's outside of what we discussed directly. I personally think my impact analysis is pretty good, though you're welcome to disagree. Appreciate your vote regardless.
I read it over but I'm going to put off a vote because I personally don't know about either side. I think "regulated" likely killed pro's case (his case was a bit more for generic sale of organs), though I'm still not 100% convinced about the hazardous job comparison negation at the very end. You say we shouldn't add fuel to the fire, but neither do you say anything about inhibiting dangerous jobs and actually reducing the coercion. So if Organ donation was an existing job (as in Iran), would you prohibit it? That's what makes me hesitate. And you say violation of bodily autonomy is unique, but pro keeps using words like back breaking labor and implies an image of greedy businessmen everywhere (especially in the black market) that makes it difficult for me to swallow your rebuttals. It's a bit weaker than your usual impact analysis, because your distributive justice just becomes really vague. What do you think?
We can talk strategy after this is over for sure, if you're interested. Suffice it to say (at least for now) that while I side with Con personally, I think this is actually a Pro-slanted topic. If I was at a debate tournament and got this, I'd rather be Pro, though I'd certainly be happy to run Con and stand on my soapbox.
as I suspected, con has a slight edge in this debate topic. I was ready to toss in the towel but I really just needed to get the answers, in case a stronger Pro asked "exactly why do you allow hazardous jobs but not the organ donation?" -- because I don't have an answer to that, and you never answered it. Sorry about the weird structure. I was trying to pick apart worries I had in the future when doing Con side. I probably lost, but it was interesting to take apart the con side and try to argue the pro's benefits.
fair enough. I was kind of waiting for some implementation counter to my big point but your counter is interesting as well. I like to go big before going small. If I had more characters I could better demonstrate the contradiction, but I feel like it's important to ask tricky questions with only 10k characters.
(also bear in mind I am playing devil's advocate and hence don't know 100% the best way to argue Pro side :P)
Also, just to be clear, I didn’t quote the article as saying “inherently coercive.” There were not quotes around those words, the article did mention coercion in the quote I used in R2, and I explained why it’s inherent. That’s not a mistake, nor was the Brookings quote. You’ll have to wait to see that one, though.
All I’m going to say is that you’re not going to like my extensions on either one. I think you’re mishandling each.
man, you off your game? Why would you link the Stanford article to "innately coercive" when those words aren't even there? and that out of context quote from Brookings institute lol.
I noticed the last link (the study) doesn't work. The article can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/57/6/1301/2623947?login=true
I'm beginning to connect everything together. I realize that the government corruption statistic makes it near impossible to actually implement the government sponsored market in most developing countries. Therefore, let's start one country at a time. Isolated so that it won't ruin other countries policies, check. Well informed citizens to battle exploitation, check. Lack of corruption, check. How's this look?
I'm still recovering, and I need to do some research, but this looks like a compelling one