Neg Case

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing
you can do is nothing". It is because I agree with the words of Theodore Roosevelt that I must
negate the resolution, Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement
from the deceased.
In order to clarify todays round Id like to offer the following definitions from MeriamWebsters dictionary.
Just: Agreeing with what is considered morally right or good
Ought: Used to express obligation.
Presume: to think that (something) is true without knowing that it is true.
Consent: To agree to do or allow something: to give permission for something to happen or be
done.
Mandated choice: An approach to public policy questions in which people are required by law
to state in advance whether or not they are willing to engage in a particular action.
The highest value in todays round is Justice. Justice is defined as equal treatment,
fairness and equality; unjust means ones moral Rights have been violated. One has been made to
suffer a burden that one had a right to avoid or one has been denied some benefit that one has a
right to possess. Justice is the highest value as defined by the resolution. The resolution makes
the implication that the value is a just society.
The criterion that best supports my value is Autonomy. Autonomy is about giving the
people freedom to make decisions for themselves. By allowing a society and its people to make
autonomous decisions it does not force any burden upon its people, and gives them all the right
to free choice.
Observation 1: The resolution demands that we define and set parameters to what a just
society truly is. We must understand the concept of a just society before we can talk about any of
the specific actions that it must achieve.
Observation 2: A just society must be pluralistic. A society that strives to accomplish
multiple just goals simultaneously. While the affirmative shows the importance of life, they must
prove that the presumed consent system can achieve pluralistic goals for you, the judge, to vote
for the affirmative.
Contention 1: Consent cannot be validly presumed.
R.M. Veatch, The professor of medical ethics at Georgetown University, says:
To presume consent is to make an empirical claim. It is to claim that people would
consent if asked, or, perhaps more precisely, that they would consent to a policy of taking organs
without explicit permission. The reasoning behind true presumed consent laws is that it is

legitimate to take organs without explicit consent because those from whom the organs are taken
would have agreed had they been asked when they were competent to respond. That, however, is
a claim which, if it is to be made with authority, must be corroborated with empirical evidence.
Social survey evidence makes clear that if we assume people would agree to having their organs
procured if they were asked, we would be wrong at least 30 percent of the time. A recent 1993
Gallup poll shows that only 37 percent of Americans are very likely to want their organs
transplanted after their death, and only 32 percent are somewhat likely. Furthermore, only 55
percent are willing to grant formal permission for organ removal. It should also be noted that
although 55 percent are willing to grant permission, only 28 percent have actually done so.
(TheGallup organization, Inc, conducted for The Partnership for Organ Donation, Boston, MA,
February 1993, pp 4, 15.) In other words, only about half of the Americans who are willing to
grant permission have taken the proactive steps necessary to do so, creating a large number of
false negatives. We might expect that if ours were an opting out system, we might also see a
large number of false positives. Based even on the larger figure of 69 percent who would be
either very likely or somewhat likely to want their organs to be transplanted. It is clear that
there can be no basis for presuming consent. Claiming such a presumption is an ill-informed
notion at best; it is an outright deception at worst.
Impact: Basically, this system of presumed consent is going to be wrong. There are too
many hypothetical positives and negatives that make the system flawed and illegitimate.
Presumption solves nothing, and harms a persons right to autonomy and choice.
Contention 2: Mandated Choice Respects Consent
Daniel Springer of Oakland University says:
What both proponents and opponents of presumed consent often overlook is the
individuals choice prior to death. Mandated choice is a prime example of how to transform the
ineffective system we currently have while simultaneously avoiding much of the controversy
between presumed refusal and presumed consent. By eliminating the presumed nearly every
individual could explicitly state their wishes prior to death. Under mandated choice, individuals
would be required to state their preferences regarding organ donation when they renew their
drivers licenses, file income tax forms, or perform some other task mandated by the state. (p.
809) by enacting mandated choice, it removes the barrier of presumption, and requires that
citizens consider their own death and how they feel about organ donation. Often in the cases of
presumed refusal and in proposed models of presumed consent, it is the family of the individual
that must decide whether or not to donate their organs. Amid the chaos and anxiety that engulfs
the family during the death of a loved one, it seems unfair to ask them whether they wish to
donate their loved ones organs. By mandating that each person decide for themselves, it spares
the family the agonizing decision while simultaneously bolstering the individuals autonomy.
Both presumed refusal and presumed consent seek to respect the autonomy of individuals, but
both fail to do so. Regardless of which system is enacted, there will be people whose desires are
not met. There will be some who wish to donate, but under a presumed refusal system, their
organs will not be donated. Likewise, there will be some who do not wish to donate, but under a
presumed consent system, their organs will be donated. Either way, there will be wishes of

people violated. By enacting the alternative, mandatory choice, this would not be the case. Each
person would be required to explicitly state, legally, their wishes. Not only would this prove to
be the most autonomous avenue, if the surveys and polls prove accurate, the number of people
willing and able to donate would rise tremendously, thus lessening the gap between the supply
and demand for organs. Therefore, mandated choice is the best possible alternative to the organ
procurement dilemma because it respects individuals autonomy, removes family members from
making difficult decisions, and raises supply of available organs for transplantation.
Impact: This system of mandated choice is the most just answer to the organ
procurement problem. It is just because it gives the people the maximum amount of autonomy,
whilst also reducing the gap between the supply and demand of organs. Essentially, this system
will provide maximum benefits, while maintaining a just and moral system within a society.