We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men.

It is because I agree with the words of Herman Melville that I must affirm todays resolution:
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent of organ procurement of the deceased.
In order to clarify todays round Id like to offer the following definitions from MerriamWebsters online dictionary:
Just: Agreeing with what is considered morally right or good
Ought: Used to express obligation.
Presume: To accept legally or officially that something is true until it is proved not true.
Consent: To agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be
done.
Procurement: The act or process of procuring, or to get (something) by some action or effort.
Deceased: No longer living.
The value that should be upheld in todays round is the preservation of life. Life is
something that is valued in all societies, especially a just society. In a just society, the
preservation of life is important because saving life is morally right.
The Criterion that best upholds my value is Mills harm principle. The harm principle
states that an action cannot be banned by a society unless it is harmful to themselves, another
person, or society as a whole. This upholds my value because seeing that presumed consent of
organ procurement does not have any inherent harm to anyone, the action and process cannot be
banned by a society.
My first contention is that: Current inefficiencies in organ donation systems lead to an
annual loss of thousands of life years.
Mark A. Schnitzler of The Department of Medicine of Saint Louis University of Medicine says:
It has been estimated that only 42% of eligible donors, medically suitable patients
who have met brain-death criteria, actually undergo donation for a variety of reasons,
including systems problems, lack of identification and lack of consent. Our estimates
translate this to over 250 000 life-years lost annually in the United States alone because of

the inability to convert eligible organ donors into actual organ donors. This is similar to
estimates of life-years lost annually in the United States from stroke or liver disease.
Further, combining lost potential donors and unused or unprocured organs, our estimates
suggest an annual loss of over 600 000 life-years, similar to the life-years lost as a result
individually of suicide, congenital anomalies, homicide or perinatal conditions and
approximately one half to one fourth the life-years lost from HIV infection, heart disease,
cancer or accidents.
Impact: The current system just isnt getting it done. Less than half of the potential
eligible donors actual donate their organs to another person. There is nothing but benefit when
we look at presumed consent of donation, especially since there is no inherent harm because the
organs are being taken from the deceased. The potential number of lives that can be saved and
preserved is inconceivable.
My second contention is that: The most comprehensive study to date finds that organ
donations add on average 30 additional life years to patients awaiting transplantation.
Mark A. Schnitzler also says:
Although the desirability of organ donation as a societal goal has not been
questioned, until now, no clear estimate of the benefit given by a deceased organ donor has
been put forth. In a previous model, we attempted to estimate the threshold for investment
in organ donation by looking at cost savings and quality gains related to renal
transplantation, yet clearly the true value of organ donation extends far beyond simply
avoiding dialysis for end-stage renal disease patients. Here we have expanded our focus to
estimate the life-years gained not only from renal transplantation, but also from the
resulting liver, heart, lung and pancreas transplants that can be performed as a result of
the act of donation. The results are staggering. A single donor gives on average over 30
additional life-years to patients awaiting transplantation. A fully utilized donor, providing
seven organs, gives over 55 life-years. In addition, transplantation of every organ type has
been associated with significant quality of life benefits. These findings give a new meaning
to the phrase gift of life.

Impact: 30-55 additional life-years is a staggering number. Thats potentially over half
of a life time that is given with every donation. By allowing presumed consent of organs, we
would increase the number of organs that can be donated, thus increasing the number of lifeyears significantly.
My third contention is that: Presumed consent systems increase donor rates.
Veronica English, a member of the British medical Association, says:
Of course, the key question is does it work? It is notoriously difficult to prove a causal
relation between particular determinants and donation rates and to extrapolate from the
experiences of one country to another. Nevertheless, careful analyses seem to indicate that
presumed consent improves donation rates. Analysis of 28 countries found that those
countries that consistently implemented a policy of presumed consent had higher donation
rates than those that did not. Abadie and Gay did a detailed regression analysis comparing
22 countries over 10 years taking account of determinants that might affect donation rates:
gross domestic product per capita, health expenditure, religious beliefs, legislative system, and
number of deaths from traffic crashes and cerebrovascular diseases. They concluded that
When other determinants of donation rates are accounted for, presumed consent
countries have roughly 25-30% higher donation rates than informed consent countries.
One explanation is that, even if the family has the final say, countries with presumed
consent legislation have fewer refusals.
Impact: The most important thing to recognize is that a new system of presumed consent
increases donor rates anyway. This continues to show the inherent benefits of a presumed
consent system. With higher donation rates, there is automatically an increase in organs, once
again showing the possibility to save and preserve life.

The affirmative shows the numerous ways that presumed consent can benefit society, without
harming any one individual or group. It is for these reasons that I urge an affirmative vote. I now
stand open for cross-examination