Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.

Goethe

Any part of the body that performs a specialized function is an organ. Therefore eyes are organs because
their specialized function is to see, skin is an organ because its function is to protect and regulate the body
,and the liver is an organ that functions to remove waste from the blood. A graft is similar to a transplant.
It is the process of removing tissue from one part of a persons body (or another persons body) and
surgically re-implanting it to replace or compensate for damaged tissue. Grafting is different from
transplantation because it does not remove and replace an entire organ, but rather only a portion. Not all
organs are transplanted. The term organ transplant typically refers to transplants of the solid organs:
heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas and intestines. Animal and artificial organs may also serve as
transplantable organs. Other types of transplants that are less invasive or may require specialized
procedures, include:
Skin transplants or grafts
Corneal transplants (corneas are the outer layer of the eye)
Bone marrow transplants

|133
HUMAN ORGANS, SALE OF
Advances in surgical and diagnostic techniques have substantially increased the success of organ
transplant operations. In 2005, nearly 27,000 organs were transplanted in the United States. However,
during the past decade, the waiting list for organs grew five times faster than the number of transplants.
The sale of human organs can be considered as a possible solution to the crippling shortage; in
1984, however, Congress passed the National Organ Transplantation Act, which prohibits the sale of
human organs from either dead or living donors. However, the black market trade in human organs is
thriving. Americans go to China, which has sold the organs of executed prisoners, and entrepreneurs
offer the opportunity for British patients to receive privately financed transplant operations in
India and Malaysia.

PROS
The seriously ill are entitled to spend their money on saving their lives. It is preferable that some
individuals receive organs, and survive, than that they die. The wealthy will not be the sole beneficiaries
of a policy of organ purchase. For each successful kidney transplant operation, valuable hours on a
dialysis machine will open up. The expense of palliative care for individuals requiring a transplant will
be eliminated. The donor of an organ, or his family, will benefit considerably from the sale. Both a
kidney and a piece of liver can be removed without significant harm to the individual. Any assertion that
an individual cannot make a reasoned decision to donate or sell these organs is patronizing. The
family of a recently deceased individual also ought to be able to save the life of another and
simultaneously receive remuneration. Legalizing organ sales will eliminate the corruption that has led to
reported executions and subsequent thefts of organs. A successful transplant operation is dependent
upon medical knowledge of the donor. The black market cannot be regulated, but its purpose would be
defeated once organ sales became lawful. The transplant surgeon, the nursing staff, and even the
pharmaceutical companies producing the anti-rejection drugs receive payment for each operation
performed. Why should the donor of the organs, arguably the most important actor in any transplant,
not also receive remuneration? What is remarkable is that a lifesaving treatment should apparently have
no financial value.



CONS
A single kidney has a black market price of $20,000. Consequently, the sale of organs will highlight
and support the most egregious discrimination between rich and poor. Those who cannot afford to
purchase an organ will have no opportunity to receive one. What family, if prepared to donate the
organs of a relative, would decide to decline a payment of tens of thousands of dollars?
Donated organs will disappear. The poor will die and only the rich will survive. The black market
works in one directionfrom the Third World to the First. The relative absence of regulation and the
comparative value of the rewards mean that healthy individuals in Asia and Africa fall victim to
scavenging organ merchants. The financial rewards make the decision to sell an organ one of
compulsion rather than consent. Where colonialists raped the land, the neocolonialist surgeon steals
from bodies. The sale of organs will lead to appalling human rights violations. Chinese judicial officials
are reported to execute prisoners for their body parts. The lawful sale of organs would legitimize
human sacrifice. Putting a price on the human body invites only exploitation by the unscrupulous.

Sample Motions:
This House would legalize the sale of organs.
This House would have a heartwith a price tag.
This House would buy body parts.
Web Links:
Living Bank. < http://www.livingbank.org/site/PageServer> Site maintained by the largest donor
education organization in the
United States; offers information designed to encourage organ donation.
Organ Donor. <http://www.organdonor.gov/> Provides information and resources on organ donation
and transplant issues and
promotes organ and tissue donation awareness.
United Network for Organ Sharing. <http://www.unos.org/> The Web site of the organization that
maintains the US organ
transplant waiting list, it provides a wide variety of resources on transplantation and transplantation
issues, including bioethical
concerns.
Further Reading:
Cherry, Mark. Kidney for Sale by Owner: Human Organs, Transplantation, and the Market. Georgetown
University Press, 2005.
Goodwin, Michele. Black Markets: The Supply and Demand of Body Parts. Cambridge University Press,
2006.
Taylor, James Stacey. Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative.
Ashgate Publishing, 2005.
Wilkinson, Stephen. Bodies for Sale. Routledge, 2003.











HUMAN RIGHTS: EXISTENCE OF
The concept of human rights is central to modern Western culture. But what does human rights mean?
Do we have such rights, and if we do, why are they needed? The United Nations adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 in response to the savage inhumanities of World War II.
This document sets out a declaration of fundamental entitlements including the political
and civil rights common to Western democracies as well as economic, social, and cultural rights that
Western nations have not historically considered fundamental. However, the document includes no
enforcement mechanism, and states are obliged only to move towards a realization of these rights.
Thus, while important steps have been made toward an international understanding of rights, there is a
long way to go.

PROS
By their nature and birth, human beings possess certain inalienable rights. As Article I of the UDHR
states, All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The simple sharing of a
common humanity establishes human rights. We extrapolate from this humanity the
norms that secure the basic dignity with which we all want to live. Desires are not what grounds human
rights. What human rights are based on is the universal need for basic security in our bodies, our
possessions, and our relationships within society. This security isnt just desirable; it is vital. Human
rights are those things that rationally assure these vital requirements. Thomas Hobbes recognized
that all people benefit from this security because human beings are equal in their capacity to harm one
another. Our understanding of human rights has evolved over several hundred years. The rights
contemporary Western societies consider basic are more extensive than those found in past societies
because these Western societies have a higher standard of living. People often must experience the lack
of something to appreciate how vital it isthis is true of human rights. Human rights are not meant to
be subject to artificial, academic analysis. They are practical guides to life, standards of how we should
be able to live. They are an objective standard that people can use when calling on their governments
for justice.

CONS
Do animals have the same inalienable rights by virtue of their nature and birth? Isnt this claim a bit
arbitrary? Why should everyone have a right just because they are born? This argument is arbitrary
and nebulous. It bases fundamental human rights on extrapolating from feelings. How accurate can
this be? Furthermore, isnt this just a wish list of ways we want to be treated? A desire to be
treated in a certain way doesnt give one the right to be so treated. If human rights are requirements of
reason, then why do we see so much ambiguity and confusion over what they are? There is huge debate
over what rights we have, and many people cannot agree that we have basic economic or development
rights. This seems odd if human rights are rational requirements that are vital to life. This is a very
subversive trail to start down. These requirements of reason are both subjective and dependent on
specific circumstances. Does that mean that humans really dont have inalienable rights, but instead
transform accepted standards of living into actual rights? In that case, two cultures could have radically
different but valid interpretations of a specific human right. Can this be a satisfactory basis for concrete
and actual rights? This all suggests that human rights can be extremely useful. However, something
can be useful, indeed necessary, without it being your right. None of these arguments establishes that
human beings have inherent rights.




Sample Motions:
This House believes in fundamental human rights.
This House believes rights are right.
Web Links:
Amnesty International. <http://www.amnesty.org/> Provides information on contemporary human
rights issues.
Human Rights Web. <http://www.hrweb.org/> General site offering an introduction to human rights,
biographies of individuals important in the human rights movement, documents relating to human
rights, and links to other resources.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. <http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html> Text of the
document.
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/> Site provides
links to over 7,000 documents on human rights.
Further Reading:
Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 2002.
Hayden, Patrick. The Philosophy of Human Rights. Paragon House, 2001.Ignatieff, Michael. Human
Rights as Politics and Idolatry .Princeton University Press, 2003.Ishay, Micheline. The History of Human
Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. University of California Press, 2004.

A right is defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as a power, privilege, (sic) faculty, or demand, inherent in
one person and incident upon another the powers of free action. Please note that rights are
inherent in a person. This means that it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a
person by any means. Imagine a brick made of lead. The first thing that will cross your mind is that this
object will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. If an object isnt
heavy, you can be certain that its not made of lead. You cannot put a lead brick into a vacuum and
suck out the heavy. You cannot put a lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light and
fluffy. The quality of being heavy is one of the distinguishing attributes of lead.

I define a right as something you can do without asking for permission. The opposite of a right,
therefore, is something you cannot do without asking for permission. Any time you need permission to
do something it is a privilege. Blacks Law Dictionary defines this as a particular and peculiar benefit or
advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An
exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.
Rights and privileges are opposites. I have three corollaries to the definition of rights. They are:
All rights are derived from property;
Every right implies a responsibility; and
The only limitation on your rights is the equal rights of others.





Success Rates

Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub has described transplantation as "one of the great success stories of the latter half of the
20th century".
Transplants
1
are now so successful in the UK that a year after surgery:
97% of kidneys in living donor transplants are still functioning well
93% of kidneys from people who have died are still functioning well
84% of simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplants are still functioning well
93% of liver transplant patients are still alive
80% of intestinal transplant
2
patients are still alive while
81% of heart transplant patients are still alive
For lung transplant patients the figure is 82% while 85% of heart/lung transplant patients are still alive.