That selling human organs should be legal

EndarkenedRationalist

I'd like to begin by welcoming my opponent and extending my hope for a great debate!

As a preface to my arguments, nothing in the resolution specifies that people have to sell other people's organs. Therefore I will be arguing as to people having the right to sell their own organs. 

 Contention 1: Humans Have Ownership of Their Own Bodies

This is a fairly standard point, and I don't believe many people would argue against it. The only people who don't have ownership over their own bodies are slaves, and slaves are not a topic relevant to this debate. Hence humans have the right to do as they will with their own bodies.

Contention 2: Selling Organs Can Save Lives

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, 18 people die every day waiting for an organ donor, and one organ donor can save 8 lives [1]. Situations where victims die in the United States because people couldn't find a replacement organ in time are common. By creating a market for organs, wherein people can choose to sell them in exchange for cash, we create a faster avenue toward saving lives. By allowing this market, we can end vast amounts of death and suffering. In fact, a Canadian study found that selling organs would not only increase the amount of willing participants, but it would also reduce medical costs for patients and increase their quality and length of life [2]. Director of Bioethics at the Cato Institute Sigrid Fry-Revere argues that selling organs is just another function of a free market - an exchange of "money for goods and services" [3]. The lack of participants for organ donation clearly testifies to the notion that altruism alone is insufficent to rectify the organ shortage problem. But by creating incentives for people to sell organs, we both save lives and benefit the donors by compensating them with cash for a free choice they made. Furthermore, as Forbes reports, there is evidence that selling organs works [4]. Selling organs is legal in the Philippines, for example, and the market there is thriving. Iran also has a similar system, wherein people who sell organs to the government, which acts as an intermediary. In turn, the government pays them and provides free health insurance for a year [4]. This has virtually wiped out a waiting list for donors, allowing countless lives to be saved. 

Sub-point A: Selling Organs Need Not Exploit the Poor

This would be the common counter-argument, so I decided to address it here. Many people might argue that selling organs would unfairly exploit the poor. However we, as a society, recognise the freedom of individuals. Many people who enlist in the military are poor. In 2004, almost two-thirds of army recruits where their median house income was below the US median [5]. Joining the army is almost certainly more dangerous than selling an organ, yet few people argue that the army exploits the poor. This is because we recognise and understand that the people have the right to join the military if they consider the rewards to be worthwhile. Likewise, we can understand that people have the right to sell their organ(s) if they deem the rewards to be worthwhile. If the poor are allowed to choose high risk jobs like this, surely they can also be permitted to sell their own organs. To say otherwise is an infringement on their liberty and soverignty over their own bodies.

Contention 3: Selling Organs Cuts Down on Black Market Sales

This is also a fairly standard point. By legalizing the process of selling organs, we not only save the lives of victims and patients but also those who would otherwise be exploited by the Black Market. Legalizing the process makes it safer and more accessible to the average person. It also allows the transaction to be overseen by credible, certified professionals, thereby adding standards of hygiene and safety to the process. 

That's all for now. I look forward to my opponent's case! 

[1] http://www.organdonor.gov/index.html

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/#/health/health-news/kidney-10-000-paying-donors-actually-pays-new-study-finds-f8C11459939

[3] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/right-sell-organs

[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/marciaclark/2013/06/13/selling-your-organs-should-it-be-legal-do-you-own-yourself/#./?&_suid=139846983574204354440137356078

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html

EndarkenedRationalist

I thank my opponent for his detailed response! As this will be the final round of the debate (as per the rules), I will thank my opponent to refrain from introducing new arguments and sources in his final argument because I will be unable to respond to them.

I will now address my opponent's case.

A significant portion of my opponent's argument rests around live versus dead people and the rights they might possess over their bodies. It is for this reason that many people consent to have their organs used after death. The simple numbers tell the story of people seeking to either save lives or improve the quality of life - the latter being something that is still a valuable standard. As Lifegift reports, only 1 in 5 patients awaiting an organ transplant will receive one each year [1]. With over 100,000 people in the US alone awaiting one [1], this does not bode well for the many patients and victims whose lives could either be saved or substantially improved through organ donation or a legalised organ market. Sure, if the donor is deceased, he or she may not financially benefit, but the donor would have, in most cases, made a conscious and informed decision to become an organ donor prior to death, and it is still very possible for the donor's family to benefit, not to mention the patient in need.

My opponent separates vital and non-vital organ donations, and goes on to make an argument I countered in my first round. An organ market is not necessarily something geared toward and exploitative of the less fortunate in society. Recall my military argument - few people would say military service exploits the poor (and my opponent is one of the many who does not claim this). Instead, we trust these individuals to perform a basic cost-benefit analysis and determine that their standard of living would increase financially while the patient's would increase physically. This is a win-win situation for both parties, and criminalizing it thereby not only limits their individual freedoms but also limits their qualities of life.

We have seen that there is a demonstrated need for organ donations, and that an organ market would incentivize such a procedure. We also know that the need for an organ market is rapidly growing [2]. The waiting list  continues to skyrocket, and though the transplants still outnumber the number of actual donors, they hardly dent the amount of people in need.

My opponent introduces an argument around the pressure people are subjected to in order to make the decision to donate/sell a non-vital organ. This seems to be a moot point. People are subjected to pressure for just about every decision they make in daily life. Why should an organ market be any different? Additionally, most people fear becoming organ donors/vendors for very different reasons. As the New York Times reports, many people fear donating organs because: they fear they are too unhealthy/too old (23%), they fear the doctors will not work as hard to save them (50%), or they do not believe a person can recover from brain death (57%) [3]. With so many myths out there surrounding the process of donating/selling organs, people can hardly be expected to make educated decisions in favour of the resolution. People's concerns are then generally internal, which negates my opponent's argument, or are influenced by the same external factors as any other decision, which also negates my opponent's argument.

The last bit of my opponent's argument rests around a can of worms. However, there is no third, omniscent justice determining organ donation, as my opponent's case suggests. It is a decision made by the individal donating/selling the organ. That living person is the one who has power over his/her life. Now, my opponent points out that we would have more people willing to sell than donate. Exactly. This is how a market works. And at the moment, based purely on the statistics, we are in grave need of people willing to provide organs, whether life-saving or life-improving. The sanctity of life is just as valuable as standard to my case as the quality of life is. We live in a modern consumerist society. And even then, there will still be altruists and good samaritans who would donate non-vital organs to help their fellow man.

My opponent now critiques my contention 1 with false analogies. Abortion is framed as the right of the owner of the body, but the main discussion stems from whether or not the foetus is alive. We then wonder whether the right to property (the body) supercedes the right to life. However, there is no clear consensus on whether the foetus is alive or not, or at which stage this occurs. This is a topic that involves more than just the right to one's body. The same applies to euthanasia, only it definitely involves a second person (I support euthanasia, but that's a different topic). Again, euthanasia is not one indivdual's right over one's body. The word for this would be suicide, which is also another discussion entirely.

That the selling of some organs saves lives is still a strong supporter for my case. Other organs increase the quality of one's life finacially and the quality of the other's life physically. Both parties benefit from this transaction.

My opponent calls my argument that joining the military is riskier than selling an organ ridiculous. This strikes me as strange. Have more people died selling organs (vital, in which case they were generally already dead or near death) than in war? I find that difficult to believe, especially with the numbers I've already provided detailing donors, transplants, and the waiting list. Additionally, a person who agrees to sell a vital organ is doing so in order to save another person - or, as I pointed out in my first round, 8 other people. Thus for vital organ donations, we can see a ratio of 1 death to 8 lives saved. This is not a 1:1 deal, as my opponent is trying to argue. A person who sells a non-vital organ, on the other hand, may suffer a decrease in his or her quality of life, but he or she will also increase the quality of life of another person, or again, another 8 people. This one individual will also receive financial compensation should they sell rather than donate the organ. Again, this is a procedure that benefits all parties.

My opponent's response to my final contention is the strangest of all. Organ transplants are done in hospitals and overseen by medical professionals, and yet my opponent says these people cannot be credible or certified. How does this make any sense? Organ transplants done via black market not only are exploitative of the poor [4], but they also have a higher ratio of deaths than organ transplants done legally and safely in hospitals. One of my opponent's biggest concerns is exploitating the poor, and yet by criminalising the sale of organs, this is exactly what my opponent is doing. Legalisation allows the process to be performed in hospital with doctors rather than back-alleys with a man with a scalpel and a bathtub full of ice.

To summarize, permitting the sale of human organs will increase the quality of life for both patients and donors/vendors. It also combats the expolitation of the poor that so concerns my opponent. There are hundreds of thousands of people in desperate need of an organ transplant, whether life-saving or life-enhancing, and a market incentivizes people to assist in helping others. This sense of community is something that ought to be encouraged.

For all of the reasons here, as well as those demonstrated throughout my case, I urge the voters to affirm the resolution, Resolved: That Selling Human Organs Should be Legal.

Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for providing this chance to debate, and I wish him the best of luck in the last round.

[1] http://www.lifegift.org/resources/files/DonationAfterCardiacDeathBrochure.pdf (pg3)

[2] http://www.organdonor.gov/about/data.html

[3] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/the-reluctant-organ-donor/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[4] http://www.futurity.org/black-market-for-organs-takes-toll-on-poor/