THBT Regulated Markets for Human Organs Should be Legal in UHC
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.