3 Reasons Why the Organ Procurement Topic Matters

[Clark]

http://www.mndebateinstitute.org/2014/08/20/why-the-ld-organ-topic-matters/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-the-ld-organ-topic-matters

3 Reasons Why the Organ Procurement Topic Matters
Andrew Urevig

When I first saw it, the new LD topic—Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased—seemed small.

I thought, “Okay, sure, there are some interesting issues to address here, but the impacts on both sides are pretty small, and there isn’t a whole lot of ground to debate. Besides, there were much better topics that could have been picked.”

But organ procurement is the topic, and there is some good literature on it. That is not, however, what I want to talk about (though I’ll link to some useful topic lit). In this post I want to look at three reasons why this topic is important—why it matters, why we should care.

1. Organ Donation/Procurement Is Relevant
organ-procurement-operationThis issue impacts real people facing real—literally deadly—danger.

There aren’t enough organ donors. In America, this shortage kills 18 people each day. And the World Health Organization says that “the shortage of organs is virtually a universal problem.”

You yourself might know someone who desperately needs a transplant. If you don’t, ask around. A parent of friend probably does. Would presumed consent save lives? Is it worth any harms the negative brings up? That’s what we debate, but it should now be clear that the stakes are relevant.

Once society decides whether or not to pass presumed consent legislation, what happens? Well, you see what whenever you go to the DMV. Anyone with a driver’s license gets to choose whether they become an organ donor—a small decision with similarities to the bigger resolution.

Minnesota law states that “the designation ‘donor’ constitutes sufficient legal authority for the removal of all body organs or parts upon death of the donor for the purpose of transplantation.” But you have to opt in to be a donor—we don’t presume consent.

(Even though Minnesota ranks higher for organ donation than many states, advocates say we could do better, so they push more legislation.)

Don’t live in Minnesota? Just use this handy site from the US Department of Health and Human Services to check your specific state laws.

It’s hard to deny that this topic holds more relevance to our everyday lives than, say, a debate on whether historic preservation is a legitimate constraint on property rights (seriously, that’s a potential topic for this year).

2. There’s Misunderstanding About Organ Procurement
ld-organ-transplant-heartWhen you debate a topic, you learn more about that topic. (Well, I hope you do. If not, let’s talk about your concerning addiction to non-topical arguments.)

So what? Learning more about organ procurement matters since people are often misinformed about how it works.

While there’s a real shortage of organ donors, there’s no shortage of fake info about organ donation: you’ll find plenty of fibbing, flim-flam, and mildly frightening tomfoolery on the issue.

Want a warrant for that claim? Minnesota’s own Mayo Clinic wrote a list of nine big organ donation myths—read it. Debating the issue gives you a clear look at these myths, so you can be a better advocate in your community.

I think that debate should prepare you to combat misinformation out in the real world.

No matter which side of the resolution you’re arguing, you can’t distort the facts—facts that you’ll now be armed with when you make your own decisions in everyday life.

3. We Can Analyze Notions of the Self
ld-debate-the-selfWe all die. That’s a fact, and you don’t even need a card for it.

Debaters often discuss death in rounds—“their side kills X number of people but mine kills fewer, so you should affirm/negate”—but it’s less often that we grapple with what death really means for the “self.”

There’s ample philosophical discourse about what constitutes the self: What gives individuals value? Who counts as an individual in the first place? Does individuality even do a good job of explaining the self? Do selves have separate minds and bodies? Are there better conceptions of the self?

By asking about how we should treat people’s dead bodies, this topic opens a discussion about our notions of the self. or is there some deeper force of autonomy that extends even past death?

Are bodies simply, as H. E. Hemson puts it, “on loan to the individual from the biomass,” or is there some deeper force of autonomy and worth that extends even past death?

Who are we? Do we own ourselves? What do we mean by self? When you debate organ procurement, you have a chance to put all these questions forth. That’s an expansive opportunity.

Conclusion
This topic matters in at least three ways: It’s relevant. It counters misinformation. It gives us a forum for debating notions of the self.

I find it helpful to think broadly about the social and philosophical context resolutions, and I hope that these reasons give you something to think about.