EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That selling human organs should be legal

0 points
11 points
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)

1) Saves lives

More than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the waiting list.[1] In fact, “An average of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can’t take place because of the shortage of donated organs.”[2] The number of organs needed exceeds the number available for transplants. These 1000 people that die could have been on the waitlist for years, because of lack of organs, or the blood type needed etc. This number is also not completely accurate because it excludes the figures for patients denied organ transplants because of habits.

If we were to allow the sale of organs, those willing to sell their organs would help save some, if not the majority of those 1000 patients!

2) Easier access to organs- available & affordable

Paying for donors, would guarantee a greater supply. With a greater supply for the demand, prices can be lowered. Therefore, organs would be both more easily available and affordable. With an increase in supply, or a rightward/upward shift in the supply curve, prices, ceteris paribus, go down. [3]

In Iran, the sale of organs is illegal. It is the only place in the world like this. The number of deaths resulting from a shortage of organs is significantly less.

3)Incentive to give up organs

If people know they can get financial incentives for giving up their organs, they will be more likely to provide a supply. This may even help some people who are in need of finances.

4) Morality

Keeping the sale of organs illegal would mean that someone who engages in consensual, open commerce would go to jail and thus is punished for a victimless crime, instead of resources being used for “real” crimes, like murder. “Organ scarcity continues to prevail...inequitable therapeutic dispensation; escalating costs; trade; crime; and premature death.”[4] Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because ‘‘morality’’ does not allow them to have access to the organs. Therefore, it's immoral to legislate against the sale of organs.

In addition, our organs are our possessions and the property of the donors and as such, they should do with it what they wish, especially if it is for the cause of a “victim-less crime.” These donors would give permission if they wish to sell their organs, not be forced.

How can we deny that someone not give up their possessions?

5) The government is not legitimate to make anything illegal.

Con needs to justify that the government has the right to make the sale of organs illegal. Everyone is entitled to “freedom of choice.” If someone chooses to do drugs, it’s their decision. If someone chooses to sell their organs, it’s their decision. Why can the government stand in their way?

Con needs to prove that the government exists and that the pros of the actions they do outweigh the cons. Also, how can a government impose such a law, if morality is subjective?

[1] http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/

[2] organdonor.gov
[3] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579322560004817176
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1734170/pdf/v031p00362.pdf

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-04 07:05:47
| Speak Round
Csareo!!!!: Do you concede that your arguments were plagiariazed from this offsite debate? (http://www.debate.org/debates/AAN-Tourney-This-house-would-legalize-the-sale-of-organs./3/comments/8/)
9spaceking: how do you know....
9spaceking: ....master spotter.
Csareo!!!!: Copy and paste
9spaceking: dammit....
9spaceking: so I need new points eh?
9spaceking: Can I include them here?
9spaceking: organs can help people who need organs
Csareo!!!!: This space is for asking questions
Csareo!!!!: Since you have no arguments, the case is negated.
9spaceking: eh okay. But you have BoP too. :P
Csareo!!!!: I do? The person who makes the affirmative case has the BOP. That being you.
9spaceking: it's a normative resolution, thus I'm sure BoP is shared
Csareo!!!!: That simply isn't true, but I trust the judges to know the difference.

Return To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
Sorry about that plagiarism, I'll be adding new points now and trying to paraphrase because round one pretty much sums up all the possible arguments for this kind of debate.
Governments have the need to help people, and people have the right to give their selling human organs away. In addition black markets will go down because if people can sell human organs, it will obviously be legal, and since BM's organ quality are normally bad, the legalization would vastly improve the quality and quantity of human organs. In addition people need organs, people will die without them.
Thank you, thank you.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-07 11:05:29
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Contention One: Fault in System
Originally the selling of human organs was unregulated. There were reasons why this changed. The main problems stemmed from the suppy, in relation to the demand. There were simply to many people, with to many problems, and not enough human organs to satisfy everyone. This led to most governments instituting the waiting list. Generally, one will go to the hospital, be diagnosed or in emergency, and the doctor will authorize moving you to the organ donor list.
Once you make it to the top of the list, you receive whatever organs are donated to the system.

The capitalist system, while different, has a lot more issues. 

Contention Two: Capitalism dictates the rich get the first and the best organs
By legalizing the sale of organs, you are turning a government service into a technical capitalist market. When something is in high demand, it will cost a lot. The rich, who have the most money, can always afford to bid higher than their poorer counterparts. Not only will they get their organs first, but they'll get the best one's. While poor people die, because there are not enough organs to supplement their needs, the rich  live happily with the organs of another. If the poor manage to get any organs, they'll be in poor condition and unsanitary,

Contention Three: Business's exist to make money
This has actually played out before in the pharmaceutical industry. There are 1000's of medications, and millions of sickness's. Obviously there is not enough medication to help everyone, and do you know why that is? Pharmacies aren't interested in supplying medicine to a condition that only affects 2 people, nor are scientists interested in creating them. That's because insurance, pharmacies, medicinal think-tanks, aren't intrested in helping people. They're interested in making money.  
[P1] Government exists to provide for the people
[P2] Business's exist to make money 
[C3] Government is more reliable to provide for the general welfare.

I contend that organ prices would rise from their level on the black market.
"the legalization would vastly improve the quality and quantity of human organs"
I highly doubt this claim. Corporations aren't intrested in providing quality organs. They can give shoddy one's and still be in extremely high demand. 
Remember how their bottom line is money? Quantity will most likely decrease, do to a lack of donations, but I will concede that prices on the black market will decrease. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-10 08:29:08
| Speak Round
9spaceking: But governments have the rights to help people, no? And people are dying, helping only rich people is better than helping no people, eh?
Csareo!!!!: Under the current system, people are supplied from organ donors regardless of their social status. Helping without discrimination is better than helping with discrimination, right?
9spaceking: By banning sell of human organs, it's all about the black markets. And black markets, as said before, have less quality organs than usual. And who's not to say that the Black Market will give the rich priority over the poor?
Csareo!!!!: Black Markets aren't indicative of quality, as there can be good organs, and bad organs, running through illegally. It all depends on the price tag.
9spaceking: Yes, but since organs are less available when it' illegal, there
9spaceking: whups
9spaceking: I meant to say...
9spaceking: Yes, since organs are less available when they are illegal, there are less good-quality organs in comparison to when organs are legal due to the incentive of money when you sell your organs

Return To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
Making selling human organs legal does not mean there will be no more donations. In fact, it means there will be MORE donations because of the incentive. In addition, when selling human organs weren't legal, people had to buy them via the black market, or use donated organs. But what's the point of getting donated organs? People probably donate them when they're dead, since they don't need it any more, and thus the organs are older and more useless than someone who's only in his 20, looking for a job, can't find one, and sells one of his kidneys so as to get enough money to sustain while he's in the no-job period. As you can clearly see the selling of his organ not only gives him money, helping him, it also helps the waiting list as there are more supply for the demand with the legalization of human organs. As for rich getting priority, again, in the black market the rich probably get priority as well--who's to say they don't? 

In addition, about the businesses needing to make money, my opponent contradicts himself because just the legalization of the selling of human organs makes more money, which, by my opponent's logic, is good.
My opponent has failed to rebut my argument about the black market being prevented by the legalization of human organs. Note this when you vote, judges.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-13 09:27:59
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Forgive me for my forfeit's, I'm sure I'll regret them during the final judgement

My opponent makes the very false claim that "donations" will increase do to an incentive. I am sorry to inform my opponent, that if you are being incentivized with material goods, the transaction no longer counts as a donation. While more people may sell organs, there is evidence that indicates to a stoppage in the  markets. Currently, the current underground system supplements the supply needed with the price available to pay. If we were to change this system by allowing capitalist transactions of organs, we would now see a system of "all the organs" going to "all the highest" wallets. This will actually lower revenue for the majority of people, but increase it for the minority. Those already wallowing in cash.

People are already being payed to "give" their organs, so my opponents contention is moot either way. It's just in my scenario, you are not discriminated based on your social status, or your bank funds. This alone negates the oppositions strongest contention, therefore negating the resolution itself. 

My opponent's claim is true regarding the black market, but again, he fails to realize that the "black market" is simply a mitigated form of the "free market". Except now the legally traded organs are going to the 1%, and the illegal organs are going to the 99%. I pose a question to the opposition. Are there more or less organs on the black market relative to the legal system? The correct answer is less. There are less illegal organs on the market than legal organs.

Let's not forget. Not all organs are compatible with all people. Legalizing the organ trade outside government bounds will send the 10% of functioning organs to the 10% richest citizens. While the poor receive unsanitary and unsafe organs from their local drug dealer, at a price they can still hardly afford. It isn't just morally wrong for a government to legalize the organ trade, but at this point, recklessly irresponsible and will result in many deaths.

Opposition, are you confident enough in your case to risk human lives?  If you can't be confident in deciding the fate of 10,000's of people, then why should the populace be? I thank the opposition for their time, and leave them the floor. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-27 16:27:00
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Forti AnimoForti Animo
Another problem is that with people selling organs, they could have serious diseases etc but still sell their organs for the money. To solve this, there would have to be testing of every organ, which would be expensive.
Posted 2014-10-24 01:08:30
Yes, anyone can vote on it.
Posted 2014-09-08 09:46:06
Forti AnimoForti Animo
Can anyone vote on this?
Posted 2014-09-08 09:13:53
Forti AnimoForti Animo
Now would be a good time for Seventh to show me the report button...


I saw this and was going to accept. @9space, do you know how bad this is?
Posted 2014-09-08 09:00:53
O.o Goodwin how could you!? :(
Posted 2014-09-05 20:07:09
you again?
Posted 2014-09-04 06:55:49
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-09-27 17:17:09
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
Pro copied and pasted arguments. I ignored them. Con was right to say that pro had the BOP. This is what we in my part of the world call a "model" debate, because pro needs to show a model for why something should be done. Only in a judgement debate (where you're discussing the merits of some belief) does the neg sometimes, in quite rare circumstances, have some burden as well.

When pro did make their case, it was shallow and under-analyzed. For example, pro asserted people would die without organs. I wanted pro to talk me through why people might not have their organs and why their deaths are so terrible. Governments need to help their people? Why, and what's the impact of that?

I felt the con response was clever. Con focused on the sale of human organs as opposed to merely the transfer. This really focused both their case overall and their analysis. Con's arguments flowed well and easily met everything pro put forward. I would have liked a little bit more analysis here too - specifically, about why various impacts were bad. What's wrong with giving organs only to the rich, for example? Both sides did accept, however, that helping lots of people was a good thing, so I had con winning on that.

Pro did push the black market point a lot harder though. Both sides conceded there would be more organs available under pro's model. This could have been exploited much more. What kind of a person would be shady enough to trade in illegal organs? What kind of a person would be desperate enough to meet sell their organs illegally, often travelling to other countries to do so? These are the kinds of questions pro should ask themselves.

So the issue was fewer organs to the multitude, or more organs to the few. Based on the weight of analysis in this debate, I felt like having more organs in the hands of a few was a greater harm in itself. Pro didn't capitalize on his opportunities in this topic unfortunately, and failed to give his analysis the depth it required to build the more compelling evidence in the end.

Both sides made good arguments. I think in your heads you guys had the right idea, but not everything came out the way it should have. Specifically, work on explaining the harms and/or benefits of all of your impacts.

Pro shouldn't plagiarize. Con shouldn't forfeit.

CX added nothing to this debate. Neither side really used the CX effectively to ask poignant questions.

For pro specifically, every model debate will be the same. What's the problem, what's the solution, how does the solution fix the problem, and then describe some other benefit of the solution. That's an instant, perfect set up for every model debate that I can assure you works every time. In this debate, your structure was rather confused.

For con, I felt pushing a government alternative as several of your points suggest would have been more legitimate than bringing up the black market. Black market is a super-risky line to run here. You don't even need to make it a counter model. Just much as you have with the black market in this debate, assume that government support for organ donations exists. If pro challenges you on that, it's just a waste of characters since most good judges will recognize that as onus-pushing (and besides you can then argue that governments should do so even if they don't).

As usual, message me any questions or feedback! :)
4 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-09-28 03:36:33
whiteflameJudge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
I disregarded the first round, at the request of both debaters.

The second round solely features not a summary of the arguments from R1, but a series of assertions without much in the way of warrants and no evidence. Many of these arguments could and should have been bolstered, but they lack the basic analysis necessary to make them potent. The most that's done here is on black market organs, and there's a lot of assumptions made here too, especially with regards to its impacts on quality and quantity. These aren't hard to support – the black market doesn't have many licensed doctors, nor are they accountable to any regulatory agency. Those arguments could and should have appeared in this debate, but they remain conspicuously absent.

Con's arguments are far from perfect, though. I can't make heads or tails of Contentions 1 and 3. The first one seems to just advocate for the waiting list existing, and therefore regulation. A legal market would, presumably, be regulated. He says there was a supply problem, but if anything, this seems to support Pro's argument, since the capitalist system is likely to produce more organs from more people. All of the faults of lack of supply in the previous system seem, to me, to be enhanced in status quo. I can see where you're going with the number of donations being reduced, but the total number of organs going down is a bit of a stretch. The third just doesn't make sense to me. It's not pharmacies, or corporations, that would necessarily have control over these organs and their usage. I'm not even really sure how corporations would be involved here beyond private hospitals purchasing organs, which may or may not be problematic.

The most important contention is Contention 2, and which focuses on classism. Pro could have made a number of good responses to this (rich people get bumped up on waiting lists in status quo, for example), but really all I get is that it's a problem already in black markets. But as Con rightly states, having access to the pool of legal organs is inherently better than having access to the best of the black market organs, and as such the rich widen the gap more substantially.

I buy Pro's argument that it also affords the poor a route to getting some extra cash, but this at least makes me question whether there's a classist divide there as well. Con even tells me that there's discrimination occurring here, he just doesn't give me the full explanation that only the poor would be pressured into giving up their organs in order to barely get by.

It seems to me that the classism issue is never conquered by Pro, and without any warranted, obvious benefit to his case, I vote Con.

Both debaters need to spend more time relating their arguments to the topic at hand. Pro obviously should not have plagiarized, and needs to make an effort not to plagiarize from other debates in particular. There are parts of the world in which such a system exists as you guys are discussing, and yet I didn't see any reference to those. Nor did I see any arguments with regards to what a market like this does to the black market beyond a reduction in their business – why wouldn't the black market just utilize the legal system to make more money? Stories of being kidnapped and waking up in a bathtub of ice with a kidney missing may sound unreasonable today, but there's some reason to believe that that situation changes when there's a huge new market for it. Pro never said anything about how this system would be regulated, so this could have been a big point for Con.
4 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-09-28 06:59:10
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: Blackflag2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
2014-10-03 17:03:31
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
2014-10-06 15:49:12
bsh1Judge: bsh1
Win awarded to: Blackflag

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29