Instigator / Pro
0
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2676
THBT Regulated Markets for Human Organ Transplant Should be Illegal Worldwide
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Description
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:
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:
Liver
Kidney
Pancreas
Heart
Lung
Intestine
Cornea
Middle ear
Skin
Bone
Bone marrow
Heart valves
Connective tissue
Vascularized composite allografts (transplant of several structures that may include skin, bone, muscles, blood vessels, nerves, and connective tissue)
[https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11750-organ-donation-and-transplantation]
Regulated Market:
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.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulated-market.asp
Round 1
As I feel like my previous opponent had misrepresented my position, I will only improve my first argument while reiterating my second and third ideas.
I. Exploitation of the Poor
Some people commonly say that the organ traded for money helps the poor, but the money obtained in the fair market is far too low. A study in India discovers that the persons only gain $1,000 in exchange for their kidneys, and that 80% of sellers do not recommend obtaining the kidney. Indeed, the poor heavily lose massive amounts of money through the transaction. Despite kidneys being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, the donor obtains a measly thousand in the vast majority of cases. The buyers promise visas and fortunes, yet the sellers receive little to none of the benefits. Their lives matter enough, that the government should compensate them instead of needing to seek a selfish greedy man. I advocate for a system where the government gives the the poor money as potential reward for donating organs, such that the poor will not be taken advantage of and the "market" idea is stopped short. This goes beyond inter-person interaction where the buyer may potentially be untrustworthy, and hence the regulated market is inferior to a flexible system that solves all the problems.
Indeed, even in a legal example within Iran, the only country that legalizes human organs' market, proves that the poor do not benefit from being able to sell their organs. Firstly, poor information from the market dealers makes it unlikely that the poor will get a deal. The writer notes that 70% of the Iranian organ vendors are still poor. And the nurse notes that the black market is not prevented, only further encouraged and now officially sanctioned. The transfer of wealth and inequality is a notable problem as nothing is fixed.
Furthermore, the prices existing for victims who need the organs will arise as a result. The same source explains, "currently, while hospital fees may be large, the donor system ensures that prices for organ stay low. If we are to legalize commodification, there is no guarantee that supply will meet the demand, the impetus which lowers prices." The poor will no longer be able to pay as well because organs now have higher costs that solely the rich will be able to afford. This goes to explain why illegal organ trafficking will increase, as there is still yet a greater demand for free organs. The six billion people currently living in countries with a corruption problem go to infer that legalization would completely fail. As such, no matter what system we have, the poor will always be exploited, and never resolve the problem of their poverty.
II. Human dignity
Though we have our rights for liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot waive the right to liberty. The human body is an invaluable asset and while you are free to use it as you wish, to sell it sends the wrong message. You are saying your body and your potential autonomy is worth money. But people should not be able to put you in jail merely through bribery. Money, a temporary materialistic ideal, cannot match up to the transcendent ideals of life and freedom. Not only so, but you are also saying it is worth a price only the rich can buy. It would be illogical for a poor victim to support another poor seller. So you would be reducing the power of selflessness provided by the ability to provide organs for free! You reduce the humans to a means as an end, rather than highlighting the altruistic and virtuous nature of men we all should strive for. With both of these combined, I advocate for illegalization to discourage people from selling off themselves. Think of how slavery is outlawed, and we don't allow people to sell their liberty off to another. While people are capable of making their own decisions, depression and urgency can cause a person to lack the true autonomy to make a well-informed decision. Compounded by the selfish greed of the rich man, it is impossible to justify the selling of human organs from a moral basis.
III. Implementation
Many proponents of the organ market worry that the problem of organ shortage will never be solved. But the opt-out program in many countries has resolved the issue already. Noted from Stanford.edu, Austria's donation acceptance is 90%, compared to the US's 15%. It is only logical that most people would go with the status quo. To avoid complete loss of liberty as proponents argue, many family members can overwrite the decision. Nevertheless, Spain with the same system has the highest donation rate per million overall. Though some worry that the ability to ask for permission is very difficult, there has been proposed a two-step plan to resolve the problem. Firstly, you ask for permission to maintain the body for the donation. Next, the authorization to donate would be asked only after the given time to process the death. By allowing thoughtful decisions, we can resolve the problem of emotional influence. As we combine opt-out with educating people about the organ donation possibility, there is no doubt that the shortage of organs will be solved without having to put our human dignity at risk.
As you can see the market for organs is illogical and simply cannot be implemented. Now onto Con.
"I. Exploitation of the Poor
Some people commonly say that the organ traded for money helps the poor, but the money obtained in the fair market is far too low. A study in India discovers that the persons only gain $1,000 in exchange for their kidneys, and that 80% of sellers do not recommend obtaining the kidney. Indeed, the poor heavily lose massive amounts of money through the transaction. "
I guess the only response to this is that everyone in business has to know what they're doing.
Just like a vehicle purchase, you should do the necessary market research, value, fair market value and etc. Consider what's too high or what's too low or just what's a good deal doing any kind of business.
I may be destitute or on a low income in the midst of looking for or purchasing a vehicle. There will be no law stipulating anytime soon of places doing business with me and people like me to ensure a fair deal. A place of business is freely ran by the builders of it. The onus is on the buyer , seller or trader to know what they're getting into always.
"II. Human dignity
Though we have our rights for liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot waive the right to liberty. The human body is an invaluable asset and while you are free to use it as you wish, to sell it sends the wrong message. You are saying your body and your potential autonomy is worth money. "
You, I , the world says that it is. I made a debate challenge regarding "financial freedom". It emphasizes that basically the dollar or the currency rules to make the world go around.
There's a value and monetary gain to just save a life. To continue to provide mental, medical, dental, long term care, the matter of money is on the table. It is so costly that the establishment of insurance companies serve as a "benefit" for the welfare and health of the public. What you can call a benefit is individual view of it when the cost sharing still leaves a big chunk of a bill probably headed for collections. Then there's the pharmaceutical industry that keeps collecting off you. So make no mistake as we look at everything consistently, the human body has been given its place in the market. Even after you kick the bucket, the mortician profits off you.
"Many proponents of the organ market worry that the problem of organ shortage will never be solved. But the opt-out program in many countries has resolved the issue already. "
Well any banning of human organ transaction won't improve the shortage. Without any banning whatsoever, what can be done?
This situation is at the complete mercy of those that choose to donate or setup up a will for themselves. The greatest control we have is prevention for the need of organ transplants not withstanding congenital organ defects.
So it goes back to life , health and wellness individually.
My position in summary is of course against banning of any human organ transaction justifiably so.
We have to think what is the most constructive result . We know an organ transplant saves lives. That's very constructive. To have many organs on reserve as we can would be constructive. Unfortunately it's the other way around. Many folks are waiting , reserved for a medical life or death procedure.
If I'm in a situation where a solution , a practical one is me obtaining an organ and I'm prohibited from doing so due to some ban , my situation is further compromised.
That's not constructive.
Round 2
Firstly, Mall says the exploitation of the poor is fine because it's the poor and rich's responsibility to know what price the kidney is actually worth. However, the vast majority of sellers once again are in the developing countries or too poor to afford the actual education or ability to access internet to understand the worth of their kidneys. It seems to me that this stabs himself in the back as we must fix the education problem first before truly being able to have a fair market. Yet at the same time, if education is fixed, the educated people will more likely find jobs and naturally resolve the problem of the poor. So another potential solution to my problem ironically kills the regulated market need in the first place.
Secondly, Mall says the human body is already taken advantage of. He says that welfare and insurance is used to protect ourselves. We pay money for pharmaceutical drugs to help sustain our bodies. Yet at the same time, this is not equivalent to selling your body for your money. The insurance is similar to "I am willing to pay this much, in order to avoid paying far more for an injury." It is in the risk that something goes wrong that we do not want to pay as much. Insurance and welfare are two almost entirely economical transactions rather than based on human dignity. Similarly, the money used to protect our bodies is still yet different than trading off the body parts. By trading off a kidney, a person loses their health. By buying a drug, you only lose money. So there is a poor comparison here, that doesn't quite match up.
Thirdly, Mall ignores whether the opt-out program would work or not. He admits that: "This situation is at the complete mercy of those that choose to donate or setup up a will for themselves". Therefore, he basically concedes the idea of by default assuming the persons will donate their organs. He hasn't rebutted the opt-out program improving the donation rate, solving our main problem. Linking back to my first point, added education will simultaneously improve the poor's status, and allow people to make a well-informed decision before they die. And even without education, the family's decision can still respect the wishes of the donor.
Mall has some interesting points but he doesn't cut the heart of my arguments. As such, my ideas still stand strong.
"Firstly, Mall says the exploitation of the poor is fine because it's the poor and rich's responsibility to know what price the kidney is actually worth."
What does " exploitation of the poor" supposed to mean?
If someone needs something particularly in a life or death situation, they're able to obtain it, what's the problem?
"However, the vast majority of sellers once again are in the developing countries or too poor to afford the actual education or ability to access internet to understand the worth of their kidneys. "
So are you determining for other people what they can or can't afford?
Is the problem that people are financially incompetent of selling things because they didn't take time out to know if there'll be enough profit to not leave them with a deficiency in their bank or savings account?
"By trading off a kidney, a person loses their health. By buying a drug, you only lose money. So there is a poor comparison here, that doesn't quite match up."
Does a person have to "trade off"? Are we talking about needs here or personal preferences?
A person can always take the best route possible that would be the most constructive for their health.
The analogy is in the need . Many people need medical procedures that can jeopardize their health which are paid at a cost share structure by the insurance provider.
You can call it advantage or you can call what makes the world go round. Call it like you see it.
"Therefore, he basically concedes the idea of by default assuming the persons will donate their organs. He hasn't rebutted the opt-out program improving the donation rate, solving our main problem. "
I said this is determined by a person. The numbers in donations depend on people. Do you know what every single person has put in their will?
"added education will simultaneously improve the poor's status, and allow people to make a well-informed decision before they die. And even without education, the family's decision can still respect the wishes of the donor. "
It'll be very interesting with a person having the information as a basis for their choice and the numbers don't change.
"Mall has some interesting points but he doesn't cut the heart of my arguments. As such, my ideas still stand strong."
I believe you are making a problem where there is none.
You mentioned about people buying something they can't afford I guess not knowing better and or selling something that leaves them in a bad financial spot.
It seems like you're picking at poor budgeting . Somehow a person should have no accountability for this. Feel free to develop your position further on that.
If your case is about people putting their own organs on the market as a preference for profit, then maybe I misunderstood your whole position. If people are wanting to be organ dealers like drug dealers, than I guess the comparison is what they both amount to.
Other than that, for constructive circumstances, there should not be any banning of a human organ transaction that's needed to save a life.
Round 3
Mall resorts to questioning my approach and his “refutation” seems quite muddled to me. He asks about what the problem is with markets’ exploitation of the poor. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. With transaction of poor and rich the latter will always take advantage of the former. We’ve heard of organ traffickers earning ridiculous amounts of money by reselling the organs. But if the government gives the compensation of actual worth you kill two birds in one stone while avoiding the regulated market for transaction.
Secondly, I do not understand his questioning about opt out program. We do know what people put on their will. 15% of people in US say they will donate while 80% of people in Austria say they will. This is a problem both within education and also within the organ donation program. My solution of opt out while allowing family to redecide seems perfectly reasonable.
Mall has completely dropped my human dignity argument. He has not told us why we should devalue our bodies for a kidney to be worth only 1000 dollars. Extended.
Forfeited
Round 4
Extended, vote for me.
"Mall resorts to questioning my approach and his “refutation” seems quite muddled to me. He asks about what the problem is with markets’ exploitation of the poor. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. With transaction of poor and rich the latter will always take advantage of the former. We’ve heard of organ traffickers earning ridiculous amounts of money by reselling the organs. But if the government gives the compensation of actual worth you kill two birds in one stone while avoiding the regulated market for transaction."
Well I'm not for anybody being taken advantage of unjustly. I don't really understand further than that of the point you're trying to make. There are people that get taken advantage at the expense that leaves a non-constructive position .
I don't know what "exploitation of the poor" means. I do respect that people have a right to do what they do with their money. People meaning adults expected to be responsible. They're not underaged minors unless I missed something.
But bottom line, no non-constructive business.
"Secondly, I do not understand his questioning about opt out program. We do know what people put on their will. 15% of people in US say they will donate while 80% of people in Austria say they will."
Do you know what all people will put in their will? Do you know what I, people I know, in my area will put in the will?
This is why you have to be careful with numbers. The numbers only give you as much as reported. There can still be many, many untold agendas and intentions.
"My solution of opt out while allowing family to redecide seems perfectly reasonable."
Yes myself and those alike will do what they choose regardless of information. It's a sensible action to help and inform people but don't think it's the be all end all. Many are politically non-partisan regardless of the information that's out there.
Not really an issue either way you look at it.
As long as we're not banning things that can be constructive to us.
"Mall has completely dropped my human dignity argument. He has not told us why we should devalue our bodies for a kidney to be worth only 1000 dollars. Extended."
I haven't told you why is because I don't determine monetary value. Something costs what costs, you either pay up or you don't. I as a outpatient don't determine a copay or the value of major surgery. It costs what it costs and that's it. Doesn't matter apparently to the world of these being life sustaining, life comprising things or not.
Are you going to argue dignity over a medical bill? This is why I don't get your point. Is it the more money something is, the more self respect there is? Why is there a monetary price on life to begin with? The ICU and long term care operate off of dollars.
Now if you want to argue that a medical bill should only be as high as the outcome of a treatment's favorability on a person's life, go on ahead.
I instead of argue, realize the way the system works. Sometimes there are medical malpractice claims or physician disclaimers. If there's something out there that is price /pro rate dependent on medical care results, no argument there either.
The point is, who determines the price?
Whoever or whatever that is, you can argue with that. I'm not arguing about what something should or should not cost because of some subjected view about the worth of people.
If we really were concerned about the worth of people, it would be something a dollar had nothing to do with.
So all in all, the banning or illegalization of human organ transplants should not be as we all know what the cost of having a transplant is.
Is the cost of human life , so we want to leave the doors open for that. I can be anywhere in the world and not worry about a restriction of a life saving organic mass of tissue.
*skims debate*
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?