Big thanks to Kano, my fellow Texan Mig12, and to Robojesus.
Organ Sales:
Since 1984, the buying and selling of human organs has been illegal in the United States. Instead the United States has chosen to rely upon the good
will of those who volunteer to have their organs harvested. Although an admirable practice, the current system of donating organs is sorely lacking.
Figures from the United Network for Organ Sharing estimate that more than 80,666 men, women and children are waiting for organs for transplantation in
the United States. Of these 80,666 souls only 24,681 received life saving transplants. The remaining 70% people are left to wait an indeterminable
period of time whilst their bodies slowly shut down and die. Across the United States, an average of 17 men, women and children of all races and
ethnic backgrounds die every day for lack of donated organs. In 2003, 5,968 patients were removed from the national waiting list for reason of death.
The idea of free will donation has failed over 5,000 people the last 6 years, and has ruined countless more lives. In order to remedy this situation
the Federal government should repeal the prohibition on the sale of human organs. There are no statutes preventing an individual from selling their
hair or reproductive materials, but legislators have decided that a kidney is different from a batch of fertile ovaries. The idea of selling ovaries
and kidneys, are closely related in that they facilitate the creation of life. America system is built around the same capitalist properties that
organ sales encourage.
Economist Brian Nottage Ph. D has suggested that organ sales would create an equilibrium market where supply will exceed demand. Nottage's numbers
indicate that a $20,000 increase in the price for a kidney would bring around a 50% higher donation rate. This is mirrored in the fact that blood
banks experienced a higher donation volume when they offered monetary compensation. Currently operating under the same voluntary basis most blood
banks have encountered a crippling shortage. Some argue that organ sales would result in a breakdown in quality. This would be offset by stringent
Federal regulation and standards. Individuals would sell their organs directly to the government at a price determined by need and availability.
Currently it is the Federal government who manages both donation and transplants, and implementing an organ sales program would only integrate with
the current system. Furthermore, repealing the prohibition would enable the Federal government to operate under the idea of assumed consent.
Cadavers would have their organs harvested unless otherwise stated previous to the individual's death. Many European governments have implemented
this system in an effort to curb crippling shortages.
The traditional conflicts to organ sales have been our morals and fear of a criminal element specializing in organ traffic. Some myths are that
donation disfigures the body and prevents a traditional open casket funeral. The truth is that transplants are carried out with the utmost
sterilization and care. Donating your organs will not interfere with traditional funeral services. Although it is unsavory to think that money must
motivate a populace to help save lives, it is a hard fact we must acknowledge. We cannot let almost 6,000 people slip into painful darkness due to
our belief in the dogma of voluntary donation. Organ sales encourage profit just like any other aspect of our capitalist economy. By legalizing the
sale of organs we create an environment that encourages production and eliminates the unsavory idea of illegal trafficking. The idea of a seedy
underbelly of organ trafficking is another myth held by many Americans. The truth is that cases of organ theft or sales are extremely rare, and small
in numbers. True organ trafficking is only prevalent in third world countries where organ sales are legal, but not regulated on the government level.
By implementing the aformentioned federal system we reap the benefits of increased supply and prevent degradation in quality and practices.
Just realize that in the few minutes it has taken to read this piece, 17 more people have come closer to death. It is our duty as capitalists to
remedy this situation as soon as possible.
Round 1. Agent47 V mig12: Organ Sale, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 11-6-2004 @ 12:05 AM by Agent47
The system for organ sales would be the most efficient way to save the lives of the most needy regardless of their financial situation. The proposed
system would only enhance upon the federal system of donation, where the government pairs donors and paitients on purely a need basis. Organ sales
would not be a business where only those who can afford a product may prosper as the organs would be sold directly to the government. In response to
the question why? I have one answer:
Every day another 17 people on that list die. If my opponent must play the economics card I must point out the economic hardship presented by the current donation service. Those 60,000+ remaining on the list must pay hundreds for medicine that maintains their health. In the case of kidney transplants, victims must deal with dialysis. Dialysis is a hard and repetitive treatment that could be eliminated if the wait was reduced.
Studies have found that five years after a transplant a patient saves $176,000, just because they have been removed from dialysis.
The National Organ Transplant Act was created in order to protect those who may not be able to afford an organ. This is an illogical cause as the disparity between the rich and poor is a repeat problem in the healthcare system. "There are millions of uninsured people in our country, people who cannot afford healthcare insurance, for whatever reason. Among those who do have insurance, there is still a disparity of what services these people can obtain. This is due in part to high deductibles, tier structure of available pharmaceutical products creating higher co-payments
for third tier products that makes those products out of reach of many insured people, and “non-approval” of these procedures by HMO insurance plans." (You Need A Kidney And I Need The Money)
By legalizing organ sales and using federal surplus to pay for donations the Federal government has the ability to save the lives of thousands. The system would mirror the current one in that it would match patients on the basis of need, and not money. This effectively silences the "only the rich will receive transplants" argument in that their would only be gain on both sides of the equation. The patient receives a life saving organ whilst the donor receives either a tax break or monetary compensation.
Links:
These are where the stats come from
www.nyodn.org...
radio.cbc.ca...
And these are the written pieces
Gary S. Becker. Business Week. New York: Jan 20, 1997. Iss. 3510; pg. 18 "How uncle sam could end the organ shortage"
"I'd Sell You My Kidney If I Could" - Debate/ Analysis orginally posted at dismal scientist.com
You Need A Kidney And I Need The Money Link
Every day another 17 people on that list die. If my opponent must play the economics card I must point out the economic hardship presented by the current donation service. Those 60,000+ remaining on the list must pay hundreds for medicine that maintains their health. In the case of kidney transplants, victims must deal with dialysis. Dialysis is a hard and repetitive treatment that could be eliminated if the wait was reduced.
Studies have found that five years after a transplant a patient saves $176,000, just because they have been removed from dialysis.
The National Organ Transplant Act was created in order to protect those who may not be able to afford an organ. This is an illogical cause as the disparity between the rich and poor is a repeat problem in the healthcare system. "There are millions of uninsured people in our country, people who cannot afford healthcare insurance, for whatever reason. Among those who do have insurance, there is still a disparity of what services these people can obtain. This is due in part to high deductibles, tier structure of available pharmaceutical products creating higher co-payments
for third tier products that makes those products out of reach of many insured people, and “non-approval” of these procedures by HMO insurance plans." (You Need A Kidney And I Need The Money)
By legalizing organ sales and using federal surplus to pay for donations the Federal government has the ability to save the lives of thousands. The system would mirror the current one in that it would match patients on the basis of need, and not money. This effectively silences the "only the rich will receive transplants" argument in that their would only be gain on both sides of the equation. The patient receives a life saving organ whilst the donor receives either a tax break or monetary compensation.
Links:
These are where the stats come from
www.nyodn.org...
radio.cbc.ca...
And these are the written pieces
Gary S. Becker. Business Week. New York: Jan 20, 1997. Iss. 3510; pg. 18 "How uncle sam could end the organ shortage"
"I'd Sell You My Kidney If I Could" - Debate/ Analysis orginally posted at dismal scientist.com
You Need A Kidney And I Need The Money Link
reply posted on 12-6-2004 @ 04:15 PM by Agent47
Once again the economic card is played and once again I have to point out the flaws in the argument and necessity of organ sales.
The national debt would not increase exponentially due to the government granting tax breaks to donating individuals, because at the same time the transplants would take people off of Federal medical care. The roughly 2,000 that the Federal Government would have to pay out pales in comparison to the 176,000$ it costs to keep someone on dialysis for a year. The number of people covered by Medicare on the waiting list is high, and if they were to receive a transplant they would no longer need intensive long term care.
Furthermore you use China as an example of how we could harvest organs.
Well as of 2002 there were 3,700 people on death row.
60,000 - 3,700 would leave 56,300 people still waiting for transplants, and that would require executing all 3,700 in one year. The death penalty is only practiced in 38 of the 50 states, and I would remind readers that transplants are done on a state basis. So if you were to follow my opponents advice you would only help 4/5 of the country. Once again this would require all death row inmates to be executed, and I would like to remind readers of the various moratoriums that have found a signifigant number of inmates on death row innocent. Furthermore only 782 people have been executed since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1978. My opponent says "this would work seeing as many prisoners as we have on death row", but Ive shown that:
60000+-3,700 does not equal full coverage, and that many innocent lives would be lost in order to provide such a slim number of donations.
My opponent used India as an example but all he points out is that it is legal to sell organs, and he did not prove why it was right to outlaw it in 1997.
Lastly my opponent mentions the government operating under the assumed consent principle. This was one of the points I suggested in my opening statement! The practice is not available now because of the National Transplant Act, so in effect my opponent has argued for my side of the argument
The United States is not China nor India nor Brazil, and the socio economic makeup of our culture necessitates the legalizing of organ sales.
If my opponent must continue to ask "why", I must continue to ask him "when are you going to prove why not?"
Death Penalty Stats 1
The national debt would not increase exponentially due to the government granting tax breaks to donating individuals, because at the same time the transplants would take people off of Federal medical care. The roughly 2,000 that the Federal Government would have to pay out pales in comparison to the 176,000$ it costs to keep someone on dialysis for a year. The number of people covered by Medicare on the waiting list is high, and if they were to receive a transplant they would no longer need intensive long term care.
Furthermore you use China as an example of how we could harvest organs.
Well as of 2002 there were 3,700 people on death row.
60,000 - 3,700 would leave 56,300 people still waiting for transplants, and that would require executing all 3,700 in one year. The death penalty is only practiced in 38 of the 50 states, and I would remind readers that transplants are done on a state basis. So if you were to follow my opponents advice you would only help 4/5 of the country. Once again this would require all death row inmates to be executed, and I would like to remind readers of the various moratoriums that have found a signifigant number of inmates on death row innocent. Furthermore only 782 people have been executed since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1978. My opponent says "this would work seeing as many prisoners as we have on death row", but Ive shown that:
60000+-3,700 does not equal full coverage, and that many innocent lives would be lost in order to provide such a slim number of donations.
My opponent used India as an example but all he points out is that it is legal to sell organs, and he did not prove why it was right to outlaw it in 1997.
Lastly my opponent mentions the government operating under the assumed consent principle. This was one of the points I suggested in my opening statement! The practice is not available now because of the National Transplant Act, so in effect my opponent has argued for my side of the argument
The United States is not China nor India nor Brazil, and the socio economic makeup of our culture necessitates the legalizing of organ sales.
If my opponent must continue to ask "why", I must continue to ask him "when are you going to prove why not?"
Death Penalty Stats 1
reply posted on 14-6-2004 @ 01:53 PM by Agent47
Well seeing as you can't provide a name for your mystery scientist I find it hard to believe his "population control" theory at face value.
If your last argument rest solely on the idea that we need 60,000+ people to die a horrible, painful, and slow death to avoid overpopulation then you will be glad to find out the following.
The National Vital Statistics Report published by the CDC found that 157,078 accidental deaths occured in the United States in 2001.
Thats nearly double the number my opponent has suggested, and these people did not have to endure the slow agonizing death of illness.
Imagine having Acute Renal Failure (End Stage Kidney Failure). Everyday you wait on a transplant list your kidneys continue to deteriorate, until at one point your body is incapable of filtering out your blood. Urine and other bodily fluids continue to build up in your bloodstream. Your blood pressure rises and you enter a state of near constant nausea. The pain doesn't end here. Soon blood poisoning sets in. Bacteria is coursing through your veins and attacking your vital organs.
Without a fresh kidney to clean up all these toxins your blood stream continues to become polluted. Everyday you wake up and vomit blood as you slowly die from your own fluids. If your lucky the bacteria will reach your heart or lungs. Once it gets to your lungs you can take heart in a quick death, but also an agonizing one. As you violently gasp for air you feel a suffocating pain as your body slowly dies from lack of oxygen. No matter how hard you try to breath nothing will enter your lungs. Slowly you black out, and in five minutes you are dead.
Now I've seen someone die from complications from cancer in this same way, and that was my mother. Now I am not making this up as it is a very touchy subject with me. To sit by someones bed side and watch them slowly loose the fight to breath, listen to them gasp for oxygen, and feel their pulse go weak is something I would wish on no one.
My opponent thinks this is acceptable for over 60-,000 people not to mention their families. Just because he claims the US is overpopulated.
Well the truth is that the United States maintains about 75 people per square mile compared to India which has 750 people per square mile. India has one hundred times the population density of the US, but my oppoenent claims that "they get by"
Furthermore my opponent has only mentioned the "black market of organ sales" but has yet to produce one concrete story or link. Im hard pressed to believe these claims as they seem to be just pulled out of thin air.
I remind the reader that these 60,000 population control deaths are outnumbered two to one by the number of accidental deaths in the United States. Why bury more loved ones?
Sorry if you find my personal story in bad taste.
Overpopulation Statistics
Acute Renal Failure
Blood Poisoning
National Vital Statistics Report
If your last argument rest solely on the idea that we need 60,000+ people to die a horrible, painful, and slow death to avoid overpopulation then you will be glad to find out the following.
The National Vital Statistics Report published by the CDC found that 157,078 accidental deaths occured in the United States in 2001.
Thats nearly double the number my opponent has suggested, and these people did not have to endure the slow agonizing death of illness.
Imagine having Acute Renal Failure (End Stage Kidney Failure). Everyday you wait on a transplant list your kidneys continue to deteriorate, until at one point your body is incapable of filtering out your blood. Urine and other bodily fluids continue to build up in your bloodstream. Your blood pressure rises and you enter a state of near constant nausea. The pain doesn't end here. Soon blood poisoning sets in. Bacteria is coursing through your veins and attacking your vital organs.
Septicaemia begins as an infection in the walls of the blood vessels, before developing into a tissue infection such as cellulitis. Blood poisoning commonly occurs as a complication of a serious infection, such as a kidney infection. Blood poisoning is dangerous because once bacteria get into the bloodstream, it is difficult to prevent them flowing to the body’s vital organs. Meningitis is caused when the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord become infected and inflamed, which can be a consequence of blood poisoning.
Without a fresh kidney to clean up all these toxins your blood stream continues to become polluted. Everyday you wake up and vomit blood as you slowly die from your own fluids. If your lucky the bacteria will reach your heart or lungs. Once it gets to your lungs you can take heart in a quick death, but also an agonizing one. As you violently gasp for air you feel a suffocating pain as your body slowly dies from lack of oxygen. No matter how hard you try to breath nothing will enter your lungs. Slowly you black out, and in five minutes you are dead.
Now I've seen someone die from complications from cancer in this same way, and that was my mother. Now I am not making this up as it is a very touchy subject with me. To sit by someones bed side and watch them slowly loose the fight to breath, listen to them gasp for oxygen, and feel their pulse go weak is something I would wish on no one.
My opponent thinks this is acceptable for over 60-,000 people not to mention their families. Just because he claims the US is overpopulated.
Well the truth is that the United States maintains about 75 people per square mile compared to India which has 750 people per square mile. India has one hundred times the population density of the US, but my oppoenent claims that "they get by"
Furthermore my opponent has only mentioned the "black market of organ sales" but has yet to produce one concrete story or link. Im hard pressed to believe these claims as they seem to be just pulled out of thin air.
I remind the reader that these 60,000 population control deaths are outnumbered two to one by the number of accidental deaths in the United States. Why bury more loved ones?
Sorry if you find my personal story in bad taste.
Overpopulation Statistics
Acute Renal Failure
Blood Poisoning
National Vital Statistics Report
reply posted on 15-6-2004 @ 05:06 PM by mig12
I honestly can't remember the name of this scientist. I remember he did some research on spreading bacteria during the 1800's.
Did I not say that he would say that he would state this? Euthanaisa!
I'm not even going to touch on the story, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with legalising organ sales. I would like to say, though, I have seen two friends die of complications of cancer in a similar manner.
I DID NOT say this
1 I presented a quote from a scientist (Jesus, it was in my science book, wish I could remember the name!) who had a theory on population control. I don't care if it's morally ethical or not. I'm just presenting the facts. No emotion here, bub.
The "Black Market" in Human Organs
You must detach yourself from the situation at hand. Emotion only clouds the skys, making truth impossible.
If your last argument rest solely on the idea that we need 60,000+ people to die a horrible, painful, and slow death to avoid overpopulation then you will be glad to find out the following. The National Vital Statistics Report published by the CDC found that 157,078 accidental deaths occured in the United States in 2001. Thats nearly double the number my opponent has suggested, and these people did not have to endure the slow agonizing death of illness.
Did I not say that he would say that he would state this? Euthanaisa!
I'm not even going to touch on the story, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with legalising organ sales. I would like to say, though, I have seen two friends die of complications of cancer in a similar manner.
My opponent thinks this is acceptable for over 60-,000 people not to mention their families. Just because he claims the US is overpopulated.
I DID NOT say this
1 I presented a quote from a scientist (Jesus, it was in my science book, wish I could remember the name!) who had a theory on population control. I don't care if it's morally ethical or not. I'm just presenting the facts. No emotion here, bub.
Furthermore my opponent has only mentioned the "black market of organ sales" but has yet to produce one concrete story or link. Im hard pressed to believe these claims as they seem to be just pulled out of thin air.
The "Black Market" in Human Organs
I remind the reader that these 60,000 population control deaths are outnumbered two to one by the number of accidental deaths in the United States. Why bury more loved ones?
You must detach yourself from the situation at hand. Emotion only clouds the skys, making truth impossible.
reply posted on 16-6-2004 @ 11:22 PM by Kano
The winner of this debate by a margin of 6-2 is Agent47. Well done to both of you and comiserations to mig12.
Judges comments:
Best of luck to Agent47 in round 2.
[edit on 16-6-2004 by Kano]
Judges comments:
Agent47 did very well and provided a lot of statistics to support his arguments. His large variety of arguments and good use of rhetorics added to his victory. Agent47 could have responded to mig12's black market kidney stealing argument with the fact that that is nothing more than an urban legends: www.snopes.com... Not that it matters much for his victory.
I'm sorry, mig12, but simplicity doesn't always work. Sometimes it helps to keep it simple and to the point, but you overdo it. The population control argument was also very strange. It sounded to me like you said that we shouldn't legalise organ sales, because it would better that the 60000 people requiring those organs were dead. If you meant something else, you should have been clearer.
One person had a formal debate; the other had a conversation. The winner was the former.
This was one very difficult decision to come to. Whilst Agent's arguments were the most structured, well written and professional posts it was somehow mig12's style that grabbed me the most.
After I mulled this over, I decided to myself "If these to guys were having a live debate, who would have won me over" and the answer was mig12.
Best of luck to Agent47 in round 2.
[edit on 16-6-2004 by Kano]
Pages: ^^TOP^^
