Because the status is not quo, my partner and I affirm.

Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial

incentives to encourage organ donation.

A few things to clarify the round.

The Oxford Dictionary defines should as “used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.”

It is the duty and obligation of the federal government to do what it can to protect the lives

and wellbeing of citizens of the United States. It has an obligation to attempt to rectify a

problem.

Francis L. Delmonico of Harvard University Medical School explains that financial

incentives can include (1) a direct payment for organs, (2) an income tax or estate benefit,

(3) a reimbursement for funeral expenses, and (4) a contribution to a charitable organization

determined by the family or the deceased, [among other things].

The Monash University Law Review comments that, “even if laws legitimizing organ commerce

were passed, citizens would still be free to donate their organs without receiving any

remuneration.”

The same Review furthers that, “As the supply of organs increases, the market price for organs

will fall accordingly.”

Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, of the University of Michigan explains that,

“monetary incentives should change the supply of organs from being completely inelastic with

respect to costs to being highly elastic.”

Contention 1: Lack of organs causes massive economic burdens

Subpoint A: Organ shortage causes tremendous private costs.

PJ Held and FK Port of the University of Michigan estimated in 2003 that “the willingness to

pay by End Stage Renal Disease patients to get immediate access to kidney transplantation by

computing the increase in the value of life, including medical costs. They estimate a social cost

per patient of the prolonged waiting to be $122,700, and a total social cost of the list of $1.3

billion.” However, Becker reexamined the data and found that, “even these large values

significantly underestimate the total value of gaining immediate access to a kidney transplant,

partly because these authors assume only one transplant per person over their lifetimes. Our

more complete estimates suggest a value well over $500,000 per person transplanted

immediately after netting out total cost of kidney transplants, which include pay to donors.” This

proportionally means a total social cost of $5.2 billion. Becker also notes that, “Studies show

that the difference in employment rates among people on the kidney waiting list and those who

have received a kidney transplant is at least 15 percentage points.”

Subpoint B: Dialysis costs the government huge amounts of money

The New York Times reported on March 31st that “A law passed by Congress 39 years ago

provides nearly free care to almost all patients whose kidneys have failed, regardless of their age

or ability to pay… end-stage kidney disease will cost the nation an estimated $40 billion to $50

billion this year.” These costs would be alleviated by increasing the organ supply, thereby

removing the necessity of the dialysis.

Contention 2: Financial incentives for organ donation would combat the black market in

organs.

International organ trafficking—mostly of kidneys, but also of half-livers, eyes, skin and blood

—is flourishing; the World Health Organization estimates that one fifth of the kidneys

transplanted worldwide every year come from the black market.

According to the January 11, 2011 International Enforcement Law Reporter, “As a result of the

demand for organs, people who are impoverished and often not well educated are recruited to

sell their own organs or body parts. Then they are tricked and either underpaid or not paid at all.

Because of the underground nature of the transactions and the fact that the organ donors are often

illegally lured to a foreign country, they do not have recourse as illegal aliens when they are

tricked and not paid or other promises to them are not fulfilled.” The Houston Journal of

International Law explains that, “A market system may also have advantageous side effects, such

as reducing human rights violations by eliminating, or at least limiting, trade on the black

market. Despite fears that a market system will exploit the poor and increase violations of human

rights, the system may actually function to eliminate those problems." Steve Calandrillo of the

University of Washington explains that, as a result of the legal and public policy decision to ban

organ sales in the US, not only is there a serious disparity between organ demand and supply, but

a thriving global black marketplace ripe for abuse and exploitation.” There are numerous harms

from this.

First, it funds organized crime. Calinka Watson of the University of the Free State explains that,

“Trafficking, which includes organ trafficking, is the third largest source of profit to organized

crime groups, reaching totals of over 12 billion US dollars per year.” This is furthered by the

Journal of Human Rights, which discusses. “kidney hunters with links to an international Mafia.”

Second, it enables the spread of disease. Leslie Francis of the University of Utah explains that,

“Patients seeking transplants abroad encounter poorer quality of care and greater risks of

infection including Hep B, Hiv, Aspergillus and fungal sepsis.” The World Health Organization

notes that, “many studies report a heightened frequency of medical complications, including the

transmission of HIV and the hepatitis B and C viruses.”