1AC UTIL WIKI

Topic: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the
deceased.
Because the resolution uses ought we should value Morality
Kym Farrand writes (Philosophy Department, Flinders University, South Australia, 2004, in
Replacing Moral Theory, Australia Coast Press, page 11)
All moral believers, and all such moral alleged disbelievers, make choices. Every chosen or
intended practice involves some theory, involving an evaluative perspective. In other words,
any theory or intended practice is relative to some standard. Even moral skeptics and nihilists
make choices which they at least assume ought to be permitted to put into practice. This
ought assumption is their standard, and involves a moral theory. Their choices or theory
include their choices to live, to eat, and to attack other moral theories. Even if we believe we
have rejected all moral theories, we must either practice some theory applicable to the howshould-one-live sphere, or be unconscious or dead so that we cannot intentionally act.

Ends based morality is the only referential morality, meaning that it can be applied to
the real world. It identifies the good with some state of the universe like pain or
pleasure. Only ends exist anyway. Acts are just a series of causes and effects, and are
therefore just a collection of ends. Ends based values are better for debate because they
allow us to weigh arguments on multiple levels (magnitude, time frame, reversibility,
etc). This is more educational because it relates to real world decision making and links
to fairness because it decreases arbitrary judge intervention. Ends based values are
especially important to the analysis of this resolution because valuing above implies
weight attributed to organ procurement.
Thus the standard is maximizing utilitarianism. Survival is a pre-requisite to

evaluate all other rights.

Nye 1986 (Joseph S. professor of government at the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard university, former chair of the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Ethics, p. 65)
The equal access approach assumes that each generation would wish to make the tradeoffs for
themselves. The current generation cannot avoid imposing some risks upon the future. As Derek
Parfit argues, the risk does not do injustice to identifiable persons, since they do not yet exist.
Later the harm may become real. Nonetheless, if the risks are kept low and values are
successfully preserved, the gamble benefits a next generation, who then make their own
decisions about risks and benefits to be passed on to further generations. Keeping risks to the
survival of the species at a low level is essential to a sense of proportionality. Survival is not
an absolute value, but it is important because it is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of
other values . The loss of political values may (or may not) be reversed with the passage of
time . The extinction of the species would be irreversible . Thus proportionality requires that
we rate survival very highly, but it does not require the absence of all risk. Proportionality in

risks is easier to judge if we think in terms of passing the future to our children and letting
them do the same for their children rather than trying to aggregate the interests of centuries of
unknown (and perhaps nonexistant) people at this time. While the contemplation of species
extinctionor what Schell calls double deathmay reduce the meaning of life to some
people in the current generation, that is a value to be judged against others in assessing the
risks that are worth running for this generation. It is not a cause of

Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard.

Uyl and Rasmussen, profs. of philosophy at Bellarmine College and St. Johns University,
1981 (Douglas Den and Douglas, Reading Nozick, p. 244)
Rand has spoken of the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated.
When the ends to be evaluated are chosen ones the ultimate end is the standard for moral
evaluation. Life as the sort of thing a living entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value;
and since only human beings are capable of choosing their ends, it is the life as a human
being-man's life qua man-that is the standard for moral evaluation.
Contention 1 is Supply

Because the United States does not have presumed consent I affirm the resolution. I
defend presumed consent in the US. The current situation with organ shortage in
America is horrendous. The number of people waiting for organs is more than
121,000.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_tragedy_of_american_organ_donations_so_many_more_people_could_be_saved/ SUNDAY, MAR 23, 2014 10:00 AM EDT, How our
flawed organ donor system is costing lives but could easily be fixed STU

STRUMWASSER

Eighteen Americans will die today while waiting for a kidney. For many of them, that didnt
need to be the case. This sad fact gets far less attention than it deserves. Perhaps more remarkable
than the sheer number of deaths is the fact that it is a political failure not a medical one. We can chalk it up as one of the many
consequences of a gridlocked legislature. The issue is not sensational enough to generate discussion on the Sunday

morning
talk shows and instead falls into the much larger bucket of topics that legislators simply dont
care enough about, or that a broken government doesnt have the time to address. However,
it may soon grow into an unavoidable problem. Consider a few alarming statistics: The
waiting lists for organ recipient candidates broke 100,000 names in 2008. As of March 21,
2014, it now exceeds 121,000. Approximately 80 percent of those on the lists are waiting for
kidneys (a redundant organ of which humans have two, but only need one to live normal and
healthy lives, provided that donors receive proper post-surgical care). Another 15 percent or so of those
on the waiting list are waiting for livers. While humans only have one liver, the organ has two major blood supplies and, unlike the
cells that constitute many other organs, liver cells re-grow. It is therefore possible for living donors to gift one third of a healthy and
functioning liver to a recipient and, in otherwise-healthy patients, have both the donor and recipient eventually re-grow an entire,
fully-functioning liver. Currently, the average wait for a kidney is around seven years. While patients in
the end stages of renal disease (ESRD) wait for a kidney, they must undergo dialysis three times a week in uncomfortable four-hour
sessions, for years, while their overall health deteriorates. The later they receive a transplant, the less likely they are to survive. In
addition, there are approximately 300,000 other Americans presently on dialysis who are not even counted on the waiting lists for
kidneys as they are either too old or too sick to qualify as recipients, or have simply not yet been added. Each day their ranks grow.
Is there simply nothing we can do? No.

The tragic aspect of this particular shortage is that there are

plenty of organs and there are things we can do. Yet, this year we will lose more than 7,000
Americans, many of whom will be buried unnecessarily.

The global market in organs is directly driven by the lack of organs in the status
quo criminal organizations perceive a gap and capitalize on it, resulting in
mass exploitation
Teagarden 5 (Erica, member of CA Law bar; advised by Arthur Weisbrd, Distinguished Professor of Law at University of North Carolina; edited by Chloe Brooke, deputy managing
director of Lex Mundi Pro Bono Foundation) Human Trafficking: Legal Issues in Presumed Consent Laws North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation
Volume 30 - Number 3, Spring 2005 AT WIKI From PV

At the June 2003 Parliamentary Assembly,291 the Council addressed the

problem of transplant tourism, which

has prospered hand in hand with the rapid progress in medical science and technology that
has made organ transplantation a routine medical procedure practiced in hospitals across the
world.292 The Council reiterated: The supply of organs from cadaveric, but particularly from living,
donors is very limited and strictly controlled in Europe. There are currently 120,000 patients on chronic
dialysis treatment and nearly 40,000 patients waiting for a kidney transplant in Western Europe alone. Some 15 to 30 of
patients die on waiting lists, as a result of chronic shortage of organs. The waiting time for
transplantation, currently about three years, will reach almost ten years by the year 2010. 293
The Council then noted, international criminal organizations have identified this lucrative
opportunity caused by the gap between organ supply and demand, putting more pressure
on people in extreme poverty to resort to selling their organs.294 Organ trafficking has
reached a level of international concern since it is very likely that further progress in medical science will
continue to increase the gap between the supply of, and demand for, organs. The Council noted that poverty was
the main incentive for selling kidneys.295 As a result of poverty, young people in some parts of eastern Europe have
sold one of their kidneys for sums of $2,500 to $3,000, while recipients are said to pay between $100,000 and
$200,000 per transplant.296 The Council voiced the grave concern that following illegal
transplants the donors state of health generally worsens in the medium term, due to the
absence of any kind of medical follow- up, hard physical work, and an unhealthy lifestyle
connected to inadequate nutrition and a high consumption of alcohol.297 In a twist of fate, most
illegal donors will thus be forced in time to live on dialysis treatment or await, in turn, a kidney transplant.298 The situation
presents difficult questions: Should the poor provide for the health of the rich? Should the price of alleviating poverty be human
heath? Should poverty compromise human dignity and health? And in terms of medical ethics, should help to recipients be
counterbalanced by neglect of, and harm to, donors?299 Almost

everyone agrees that it is a tragedy for the

poor to sell their bodies for the health of the rich. The Council of Europe criticized the recent trends in
some western European countries towards less restrictive laws, which would allow greater
scope of unrelated living donation.300 Calling for universal action, the Council stated, trafficking in organs,
like trafficking in human beings or drugs, is demand driven.301 Combating this type of crime should not
remain the sole responsibility of countries in Eastern Europe.302 The Council listed examples of measures that should be taken by all
member states to

minimize the risk of organ trafficking in Europe such as: reducing demand,
promoting organ donation more effectively, maintaining strict regulation with regard to living
unrelated donors, guaranteeing transparency of national registers and waiting lists and
establishing the legal responsibility of the medical profession for tracking irregularities and
sharing information.303