What if that child only had her dad in her life and had no one else to do the donation? What I'm saying is that the government should be allowed to interfere with private decisions and also private property if there is a genuine and serious need. My opponent also fails to realize that the black market will still exist regardless of this mandate due to the simple fact that we are not going to sell organs who need to be given to dieing victims to weirdos who want to use them for weird purposes or sexual fetishes. That individual no longer exists. It seems pro fails to realize a mandate is a law. Some religions are against organ donation upon death. In this regard, a donor does more good by offering their liver, kidney, or other body parts with little or no regard for misconceptions as human life is sacred and worth saving.
The individual doesn't exist anymore. In the end, organ donation saves lives, which is an important and wonderful thing. Family Confusion If a person has agreed to donate their organs, then their body is usually kept on life support, even if there is no chance of true resuscitation. Advocates of presumed consent in the U. This action is impeding upon a persons right to excersice the practice of there own religion witch is a federal crime and a violation of the free excersice clause of the first amendment. A surgery can also leave visible lasting scars that a patient has to live with.
It is nothing short of selfish to defend such wastefulness. Pro I thank my opponent for his comments. It would seem like they are expecting for a fatal accident to happen and only your organs will be saved. The majority of those who seek organ donation are forced to rely on regularly administered treatments from a physician in order to live a semblance of a normal life. My opponent has failed to point out any contradictions. This mandate would make the phrase a contradiction.
In France and Spain, which are opt-out, only a few hundred die. The main reason for this is the huge amount of people who need organs and little amount of donors. . We are not obligated to donate or organs. There are over 100,000 citizens currently sitting on donor lists, hoping to find help so that they can receive a second chance to live a healthy, normal life.
They have different diseases or health problems that do not allow them to live without organ transplantation. With millions of patients waiting for organ transplantation, many argue that making organ donation after death mandatory would help save many more lives. Only fringe sects are opposed to it. And can you elaborate on your statement that forcing mandatory donations from dead bodies would make things worse than they are now? Respecting a religious establishment is an illegal? Yes, because again, you don't own their body nor does the government, apparently, you like to think that you or the government owns other peoples' bodies. First of all, the forced organ donation is a direct violation of human rights.
There is a general opinion that doctors will not save the patient life if they know he is a good material for organ transplantation. If every person who passed away was potentially an organ donor, there would be an overload of organs harvested. You can't do anything to a dead body that will make it have good experiences or bad experiences. The fact that we cant legally punish the dead defeats the purpose of making this law a mandate in the first place. The government is not entitled to make decisions when it comes to someones body! The darkest reality of the illegal human organ trade is organ theft and human kidnapping. How many people would you say are waiting for a new heart, lung, liver, etc? At the same time though, by being an organ donor can actually help you to save more than one life — rather it can help you to save several and a single donor may touch the lives of up to 50 people. What do you think is more important: A dead person's wishes about their body after death are respected, or a living person gets to live rather than die because they receive a transplant? A number of religions and religious sects have adherents who refuse to separate organs from the body based on religious conviction.
Thus, mandatory donation clashes with freedom and individual liberties. Organ Donation Should Be Mandatory Introduction Organ donation should be mandatory In our developed society, the health conditions of the population are not on the high level. If we use this logic of because we need to save lives then we must force every one to give up their organs upon death. You are no longer valuable other than for your parts. All of those things are nothing more than a collection of matter. Donors Every day, 18 people die waiting for a transplant. Do their wishes die with them? However, making donation mandatory comes at a cost.
Witch is why this resolution fails. We need more organs, as shown as there is a wait list for organs I understand that there is a list but as I and the audience can clearly see mandating donations upon death hold too many flaws to actually be mandated. In an age where we have the capabilities to utilize any body part needed it is only logical that we utilize that of deceased persons that otherwise would be a waste of completely usable material. Dead people have no interests because they have no experiences. The assumption really is that your organs are of better use somewhere else.
Some presumed consent systems work very well — just not for the reasons you think. His organ is not my to take without permission. Cons of Organ Donation Reasons against organ donation vary a lot depending on the individual. Freedom is one of the main things which allow people to feel themselves human beings with personal opinion. They have to wait and cope with their health problems until someone would donate organs voluntary. . Does it seem illogical to allow people to die of natural deaths and then furthermore allow additional individuals to die who could potentially be saved by none other then the organs that are doomed to perish in the ground with their deceased body? The only decision applicable to them is aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.