Round 1 ADA
1nc
OFF
A) Nearly all means 95% in governmental contextual usage
US Offices of Human Resources Management 04
Manual of Job Related Thinking Skills, p. 58, http:// www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/careers/
study_guides/guides_supervisory/promotion_guide/manual.ctt/manual.pdf
The first premise is the same for both the deductive and inductive columns. It is a statement that relates the two sets of “first-line
supervisors in the agency” and “people who have taken the basic supervisory course.” It states that 95% of first-line supervisors in
the agency have taken the course. You can see that this statement is not quite a universal statement, but it has more information
than a statement using the vague quantifier “some.” We have drawn two deductive conclusions from this premise .
In saying
that “Nearly all first-line supervisors in the agency have taken the basic supervisory course,” we are simply
replacing the quantity “95%” with the expression “nearly all.” Assuming that 95% meets our definition of
“nearly all,” we are essentially restating the same information as the original premise. The second conclusion, “Some people who
have taken the basic course in supervisory skills are first-line supervisors in the agency,” is a valid conclusion from the statement
“Of all first-line supervisors in the agency, 95% have taken the basic supervisory course.” (See Section II.A.5.) Clearly, these
conclusions are deductive; that is, they must be true if the premise is true.
B) Violation: Only allowing organs for the deceased is not nearly all: it’s only
50%
ABC News, 7/3/2014 Communication Could Increase Organ Donation, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117351,
Accessed 10/18/2014, rwg
More than 70,000 people waited for donated organs last year, according to the United Network for Organ
Sharing. Nearly 50,000 waited for kidneys. Yet, last year the number of donors recovered was 12,000. Only
6,000 of those were recovered from brain dead patients.
Standards:
1) Limits: they double the number of organ sales AFF’s by allowing for only
deceased donors.
2) Ground: none of our disads to living donors apply to the AFF—decimates
disad and counterplan ground.
C) Voting Issue: Fairness & Education
OFF
A legalized market would force the poor to sell their organs, but would fail to ever
provide them with any. These inequalities are the foundation of a capitalist ethic
Moniruzzaman 11 [Monir, assistant professor in Department of Anthropology & Center for Ethics and Humanities in Life
Sciences @ Michigan State University, “Inhumanity of Human Organ Trade”,
http://archive.thedailystar.net/forum/2011/October/organ.htm]
The advancement of transplant technology has created a thriving market of human organs
worldwide. In China, organs are harvested from executed prisoners, while in South Asia, “fresh” organs are removed from the
bodies of the poor populations. While poor people are at a high risk of organ failure (due to their dire living
conditions), they usually die without receiving an organ transplant, let alone dialysis. At the same
time, they serve as mere suppliers of body parts to prolong the lives of the affluent few. The organ
trade is gravely exploitative, as Indian Dr. J. V. Thachil argues: “It is criminal to exploit the poor in order to
keep less than one percent of the population alive”. In this trade, few of us would choose to sell our
organs, yet the desperately poor are left with few prospects other than to sell their body parts.
Those who benefit from this trade are recipients, brokers, doctors, and businessmen, while the
poor are tricked and forced to sell their organs, and as a result endure severe suffering. Selling a
kidney has devastating economic, social, and health impacts on kidney sellers. My research on 33
Bangladeshi kidney sellers reveals that 94% of them could not improve their economic
circumstances by selling a kidney. Most sellers sold their kidneys to pay off their debt, but were back in debt within few
years. In fact, 80% of these sellers did not receive the entire payment that they were promised. When the money was spent, they
engaged in organ brokering to support their families. In addition, Bangladeshi sellers became socially isolated, were
stigmatized, and experienced marital conflict due to selling their kidneys . Most of them not only regretted
selling an organ, but also decided not to recommend that anyone sell a kidney. Further, these sellers experienced
frequent illness, pain, weakness, and weight loss, as well as anxiety, distress, and depression
after selling their kidneys. While the medical community has put the risk of death for kidney donors due to surgery at one in
3,000 (according to Bruzzone and Berloco, 2007), the death rate of Bangladeshi sellers could be higher, due to their terrible living
condition and the fact that none of them received the promised post-operative care. What is more, the organ trade violates
humanist, cultural, and religious principles, such as holism, integrity, and sacredness of the body, along with human dignity. The
Bangladeshi sellers I interviewed believed that Allah was the owner of their body parts, and therefore they felt that selling His gift is
intrinsically wrong. They stated that they could not preserve the wholeness of their body, and therefore
were living in an undignified state, which they described as “sub-human.” Furthermore, organ trade is
a slippery slope practice. We have already seen not only human kidneys, but also liver lobes, increasingly
become market commodities in Bangladesh. How far can we go with the organ trade? Can we chop a leg and
a hand from the poor, assuming that one of these body parts is sufficient for them? An organ
trade would have much wider negative impacts, as well. It would likely impede the establishment of a cadaveric
organ donation program. Also, it would create a market where wealthy patients would buy organs
from the poor, whose price is lower. An organ trade would encourage moneylenders to force the
poor, or husbands to force their wives, to sell organs for economic profit
The culture of criminality within the United States means that calls for reform are
never enough—a death drive focused on disposability controls current politics
and shatters any hope for democracy. We must collectively organize against
neoliberalism to address the root of the neoliberal financial state—starting with
the movements of the status quo.
Giroux 14 (Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English
and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. Truthout, "State Terrorism and
Racist Violence in the Age of Disposability: From Emmett Till to Eric Garner - Expanded Version", 12-05-14, accessed online at
truth-out.org/opinion/item/27832-state-terrorism-and-racist-violence-in-the-age-of-disposability-from-emmett-till-to-ericgarner//candle)
The larger reasons behind Eric Garner's execution seem to be missed by most commentators. The issue is not simply police
misconduct, or racist acts of police brutality, however deadly, but the growing use of systemic terror of the sort we associate with
Hannah Arendt's notion of totalitarianism that needs to be explored. When fear and terror become the organizing
principles of a society in which the tyranny of the state has been replaced by the despotism of an
unaccountable market, violence becomes the only valid form of control. The system has not failed. As
Jeffrey St. Clair has pointed out, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, which is to punish those it considers dangerous or
disposable - which increasingly includes more and more individuals and groups. Hannah Arendt was right in arguing that, "If
lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of
totalitarian domination." (1) In an age when the delete button and an utterly commodified and privatized culture erase all vestiges of
memory and commitment, it is easy for a society to remove itself from those sordid memories that reveal
the systemic injustices that belie the presence of state violence and terrorism. Not only do the dangerous
memories of bodies being lynched, beaten, tortured and murdered disappear in the fog of celebrity culture and the 24/7
entertainment/news cycle, but the historical flashpoints that once revealed the horrors of unaccountable
power and acts of systemic barbarism are both disconnected from any broader understanding of domination
and vanish into a past that no longer has any connection to the present. (2) The murder of Emmett Till, the killing of the four
young black girls, Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson and Denise McNair, in the 1963 church bombing in
Birmingham, Alabama, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the killing by four officers of Amadou Diallo, and the recent
killings of countless young black children and men and women, coupled with the ongoing and
egregious incarceration of black men, in this country are not isolated expressions of marginalized failures of a system.
They are the system, a system of authoritarianism that has intensified without apology. Rather than
being viewed or forgotten as isolated, but unfortunate expressions of extremism, these incidents are part of a growing
systemic pattern of violence and terror that has unapologetically emerged at a time when the politics and logic
of disposability, terror and expulsion has been normalized in US society and violence has become
the default position for solving all social problems, especially as they pertain to poor minorities of class and color. If
police brutality is one highly visible expression of the politics of disposability, mass incarceration
is its invisible underside. How else to explain that "the United States incarcerates a higher proportion of blacks than
apartheid South Africa did [and that in] America, the black-white wealth gap today is greater than it was in South Africa in 1970 at
the peak of apartheid." (3) Or that 77 percent of all inmates out of a population of 2.3 million are people of color. When ethics
and any vestige of social responsibility and the public good are trampled beneath the hooves of the
finance state, there is no space for democratic values or justice. We live in an age of disposability
- an historical period of increasing barbarism ruled by financial monsters, who offer no political concessions and are driven by a
death-drive. Under assault are those individuals and populations considered excess such as poor
youth of color and immigrants but also those public spheres such as public and higher education
that offer a space for critical ideas, thoughtfulness, informed exchange and the development of
modes of democratic solidarity. Democratic values, commitments, integrity and struggles are
under siege in the age of neoliberal misery and disposability. The aim of the terrorist state, as Arendt argues, is
not only to instill fear, but to destroy the very capacity for convictions. Under such conditions, power is not only unaccountable, but
it is free from any sense of moral and political conviction. Hence, the rise of the punishing state as a way to
govern all of social life. In this context, life becomes disposable for most, but especially for poor minorities
of class and color. I think bell hooks is right when she states that "the point of lynching historically
was not to kill individuals but to let everybody know: 'This could happen to you.' " This is how a
terrorist state controls people. It individualizes fear and insecurity and undercuts the formation of
collective struggle. Fear of punishment, of being killed, tortured, or reduced to the mere level of survival has become
the government's weapon of choice. The terrorist state manufactures ignorance and relies on induced isolation and
privatization to depoliticize the population. Beliefs are reduced to the realm of the private allowing the public realm to sink into the
dark night of barbarism, terror and lawlessness. Without the ability to translate private troubles into public issues, Americans face a
crisis of individual and collective agency as well as a historical crisis. As an endless expression of brutality and the ongoing
elimination of any vestige of equality and democratic values, the killing of innocent black children and adults by the police makes
clear that Americans now inhabit a state of absolute lawlessness and extreme violence, one that both fills
the Hollywood screens with prurient entertainment and a culture of cruelty and, unfortunately, provides testimony to the ravaging
violence that marks everyday life as well. Of course, this is not simply a domestic issue or one limited to the United States. As Arif
Dirlik points out, "Life in general is being devalued for entire sections of populations across the globe. Let's not forget the
callousness with which people are being murdered by drones, US troops, Israel, Han Chinese (Tibetans, Uighurs). The
assassination of blacks by the police across the US gives the impression of a vulnerable population being used as guinea pigs, to
warn the rest of what to expect if we get out of line." (4) Totalitarianism is on the rise across the globe just as a growing
number of populations that are vulnerable are becoming more disposable due to modes of governance
wedded to militarism, unchecked market forces, corporate sovereignty and updated forms of disorder. Calls for minor
reforms such as retraining the police, hiring more people of color, equipping police with body cameras (5) or making the grand
jury system more transparent will not change a political and social system that has lost its connections to
the ideals, values and promises of a democracy. (6) Just as calls for punishing the Wall Street crooks who caused
the financial crisis will not reform the system that produced the financial debacle. In fact, the pleas for reform are often
made by apologists for the punishing state in the aftermath of highly publicized examples of
police brutality, botched executions, the shootings of unarmed black teenagers and the numerous
reports of torture, solitary confinement and the ongoing criminalization of social problems. For
example, President Obama responded to the police violence and national uprisings by chastising blacks for looting and rioting. This
is not merely another blame-the-victim narrative; it is an act of moral duplicity coming from a president that makes George W. Bush
look liberal when it comes to violating civil liberties and punishing whistleblowers while expanding the indiscriminate killing of
civilians through the use of drone warfare. In addition, there is Eric Holder who refused to prosecute Wall Street criminals and yet
assures the US public that the government will conduct independent investigations in the interests of the powerless. Credibility is
more than stretched in this instance. It gets worse. New York City police chief, Bill Bratton, vows to retrain 22,000 police officers but
evades questions about the police force using chokeholds on innocent victims. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
appearing on Fox News Sunday suggests that some police reforms may be necessary and then gets to the heart of the matter by
invoking the argument that blacks inhabit a culture of criminality. His comments are worth repeating: "But I think just as much, if not
more, responsibility is on the black community to reduce the reason why the police officers are assigned in such large numbers to
the black community. It's because blacks commit murder eight times more per capita than any other group in our society." (7) As if
this argument justifies the beatings, shootings and killing of innocent individuals at the hands of the police. These calls for
reform are not only disingenuous coming from people entrenched in supporting the punishing
state and the interests its supports, but also because they are invoked to hide the real causes of
misery and violence in the United States which come from a society immersed in racism,
economic inequality, poverty, the redistribution of wealth away from the public sector, the
ongoing destruction of the welfare state and a political system now entirely controlled by financial
elites. Chase Madar is right in arguing that lawlessness is on the side of the police and the law has become
a license for them to kill with impunity, and as such the question of police brutality has to be addressed
far beyond the discourse of liberal reforms. He writes: Police demilitarization, the decriminalization of working-class
people, new policing models: these are all projects that could work in Ferguson and thousands of other American cities. Although
none of these large-scale ideas is explicitly race-conscious, they would most likely tighten the severe racial disparities in policing
violence that exist all over the country, more so than pouring more money into racial sensitivity training for cops. These big-
picture reforms are fundamentally political solutions that will require long-term effort, coalition
politics that spans race, ethnicity and political affiliation - a challenge, but also a necessity. As police
and prosecutors assume more and more power in the United States - regulating immigration (formerly a matter of administrative
law), meting out school discipline, and other spheres of everyday life where criminal law was almost unknown even a generation
ago - getting law enforcement on a tight leash is a national imperative. In the meantime, the constant stream of news reports of
unarmed, mostly black and Latino civilians killed by police demands bigger, bolder approaches. They are the only available paths to
getting the police under control. (8) What drives the increasing brutalization and killing of innocent people in
the United States is a form of state terrorism free of social responsibility, guilt and morality. This is a form of state violence
fed by gun culture, the criminalization of poverty, the militarization of the culture of low-income
and poor people of color, and the misery spurned by neoliberal, slash-and-burn policies aimed
mainly at the poor and the welfare state. The face of terrorism can be captured in images of the police spraying tear
gas into the crowds of peaceful protesters in New York City. It can be seen in reports of the police choking students, firing hundreds
of rounds of bullets into the cars of civilians, beating a defenseless mentally-ill woman, and in the ongoing comments of right-wing
fundamentalists who instill moral panic over the presence of immigrants, protest movements and any other form of resistance to the
authoritarian state. How else to explain the comments made on national television news by Pat Lynch, the head of the New York
City police union, who stated that NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo deserved to be acquitted by the grand jury in the death of Eric
Garner because Garner was able to utter the words "I can't breathe," which allegedly indicated there was no chokehold applied to
his neck, in spite of what the video displayed or what the medical examiner concluded. Even Orwell could not make this up. Lynch
overlooked not only the evidence provided by the video of Garner's brutal killing and the verdict of the medical examiner but also the
fact that Pantaleo has a history of racial misconduct in the police force. But more importantly, the New York City police force has a
long history of racist practices and violence extending from an aggressive policy of racial profiling to bullying people in the name of
the broken windows policing theory, which is a synonym for harassing young black men. (9) It gets worse as fatal police encounters
with black men reach epidemic proportions. (10) Necropolitics now drives the everyday existence of poor
people of color. As David Theo Goldberg points out, how else to explain "the account Darren Wilson has given publicly about
his sense of Michael Brown as a large, violent, probably armed young black man? Or the shooting with absolutely no warning of 12year-old Tamir Rice for carrying a pellet gun in an otherwise empty snow-filled park . . . Or the luckily unsuccessful shooting at a
black father by mistaking for a weapon the 6-year-old daughter he was rushing to save from a severe asthma attack?" (11) It doesn't
end here as the nightmare videos appear of a cop viciously beating a 50-year-old, mentally-ill black woman along a busy Los
Angeles highway, and another report of a young black man being killed in a Walmart store for allegedly "brandishing" an air rifle
which he had reportedly been holding and leaning on, as if it was a walking stick. In totalitarian regimes, the mass psychology of
authoritarianism runs amok as such indiscriminate acts of state violence are followed by the language of demonization, racism,
cruelty and mad utterances of hate. Black men are called dangerous criminals, thugs or drug addicts. This
is a discourse of abusive certainty, unmoved by its ignorance and determined to legitimate
massive extremes of inequality, material deprivation and human misery as it produces widening
zones of violence and abandonment. Under such circumstances, the language of reform has
become the discourse of apologists. (12) None of these alleged reformers situate the violence done
to Garner within a wider context of state violence. For instance, Garner's death is not analyzed in the context of the
charge that the New York City police force is a corrupt and lawless institution, which raises questions about a society that produces
such lawless institutions. No connection is made between how police are trained and regulated, and the evidence that the killing of a
12-year-old black child was committed by a cop deemed incompetent by his previous department. Only recently has the
militarization of local police forces become national news, but the latter is largely unassociated with the rise of a permanent warfare
state and the militarization of the entire society. Little is learned from the ongoing evidence that blacks are mostly terrified of the
police who act like an occupying force in their neighborhoods, which are treated like war zones. What ties all of these events
together is that all of these acts of violence, corruption and incompetence are not isolated practices but
add up to the new face of domestic terrorism in a post 9/11 United States. Lawlessness in the
authoritarian state thrives on the purported existence of an alleged culture of criminality. The culture
of criminality thesis has taken on a new register as the punishing state increases the range of social behaviors it now criminalizes. If
somebody is poor, unable to pay their debts, violates a trivial rule in school, is homeless or viewed as the other, they are prime
targets for the criminal justice system. As the police become more militarized and the culture of cruelty becomes more pervasive,
the senseless harassment of young black men is followed by a spate of racist killings. Under such circumstances, the criminal
justice system is not noted for its respect for justice but for how it has "become criminal in its lack of justice." (13) Unfortunately,
there is a culture of criminality in the United States and it resides in the mega-banks, the ultra-rich
hedge funds and other apparatuses of the finance state. But on this issue there is nothing but silence from
Calls for such reforms do not challenge the totalitarian politics and financial
forces that rule US society. They simply give the system a veil of legitimacy suggesting
it can be fixed. It can't be fixed. This is not to suggest that it is better for cops to wear cameras than carry militaryalleged patriots.
short-term
solutions and do not address the larger structural violence
and racism built into the neoliberal financial state . It is a death-
grade weapons or that there is no point in creating new policing models. But
these are
dealing system ruled by political and moral zombies, and it has to be transformed through the
ongoing, nonviolent mobilization and development of social movements that can imagine a
democracy that is real, substantive and radical in its calls for justice, equality and freedom. The dark
possibilities of our times are everywhere. The killing of Eric Garner is a flashpoint that has mobilized people
all over the country. The demonstrations must continue full force and as a first step criminal charges
must be brought against rogue cops and lawless police departments that believe that they can engage in
racist repression and brutalize black neighborhoods by treating them as war zones. The racist ideologies, institutions and language
of the new authoritarianism are part of a systemic project of disposability, harassment and expulsion and provide the formative
culture necessary to treat blacks, as Robin D.G. Kelley points out, "like enemy combatants," which constitutes the first step toward
brutalizing and in some cases killing young black men with impunity. (14) But then the hard work begins of creating
political formations at every level of government that will dismantle this barbarous system run by financial looters
and backed up by rogue paramilitary forces. Let's hope the killing of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric
Garner provides the beginning of a political and social movement to fight what has become a dark
and gruesome political state of governance in the United States.
The alternative is one of recognition and rethinking—to restructure our notion of
democracy and unite in the process of collective struggle. The hope of the
alternative imagines institutional change by recognizing the impossibilities of the
future—the pedagogy of hope introduced by the alternative abandons pessimism
in the first step towards a new politics of possibility
Giroux 13 (Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English
and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. Truthout, "Hope in a Time of
Permanent War", 09-04-13, accessed online at truth-out.org/opinion/item/18578-hope-in-a-time-of-permanent-war//candle)
The war drums are beating loudly, and America is once more mobilizing its global war machine. How might it be possible
to imagine hope for justice and a better world for humanity in a country that has sanctioned state torture,
is about to bomb Syria and kill untold number of civilians, spies on its own citizens, extends the reach of the punishing state into all
aspects of society, and inflicts violence on black and brown youths through racial profiling and the
machinery of the mass incarceration state? How does one retrieve hope from the dark and dismal killing, cruelty,
human rights violations and abuse that has been produced as a result of the needless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the role
played by a conformist media that supported such practices? Is hope on terminal life support when the police are allowed to
handcuff a kindergarten student for doodling on her desk or arrest a student for a dress code violation? What does hope mean in a
country in which there is no tolerance for young protesters and infinite tolerance for the crimes of bankers, hedge fund managers
and corporate polluters? How can hope make a difference in a country in which economics drives politics and harsh competition
replaces any notion of compassion and respect for the public good?¶ What does hope mean when the United States,
as the most powerful nation in the world, is virtually unmatched around the world for
incarcerating thousands of young people of color and destroying millions of families and the
social bonds that give them meaning? What does hope teach us at a time in which government lies and deception are
exposed on a daily basis in the media and yet appear to have little effect on challenging the deeply authoritarian attacks on civil
liberties initiated by President Obama? What happens to the promise of hope as a foundation for social
struggle when all of social life is subordinated to the violence of a deregulated market and the
privatization of public resources, including health care, education and transportation? What
resources and visions does hope offer in a society in which greed is considered venerable and
profit is the most important measure of personal achievement? What is the relevance of hope at a time when
most attempts to interrupt the operations of an incipient fascism appear to fuel a growing cynicism rather than promote widespread
individual and collective acts of resistance? Where does hope live in a country in which moral courage is valued less than a
brutalizing hyper-masculinity and a cult of toughness? In spite of this brutalizing script, hope not only matters, it
is alive and well all over the globe, especially in those places where young people refuse the
dictates of authoritarians and the savagery of casino capitalism and its politics of austerity. ¶ More
corrosive than authoritarianism is a loss of faith in the possibilities and promise of collective
struggle for an open society, the promise of a radical democracy, and a society that is never just
enough. In this regard, Robert Reich's comments on an exchange with his mentor are instructive for how to understand the power
of militant hope. He writes: "You've been fighting for social justice for over half a century. Are you discouraged?" "Not at all!" he said.
"Don't confuse the urgency of attaining a goal with the urgency of fighting for it." [i]¶ Hope refuses the cynical and
politically reactionary idea that power cannot be simply equated with domination. It also raises
serious questions about its own possible demise and the dystopian forces at work in either
dismantling or subverting its power to advance democratic agency and social engagement. As a
mode of self-reflection, hope raises questions about the growing sense that politics in American life has become corrupt,
progressive social change a distant memory and that a discourse of possibility is on the verge of becoming the last refuge of
deluded romantics. Those traditional public spheres in which people could exchange ideas, debate and shape the conditions that
structured their everyday lives appear increasingly to have little substance where they still exist, let alone political importance. Civic
engagement seems irrelevant and public values are rendered invisible, if not overtly disparaged, in light of the growing power of
multinational corporations to privatize public space and time as it disconnects power from issues of equity, social justice and civic
responsibility. Political exhaustion and impoverished intellectual visions are fed by the widely popular
assumption that there are no alternatives to the present state of affairs.¶ State violence against any
display of moral courage and dissent by artists, intellectuals, journalists and ordinary citizens has become normalized and
has sent a chilling effect throughout a society in which all worldly criticism is equated with treason, anti-Americanism or worse.
Whistleblowers who expose government wrongdoings are labeled as traitors in the dominant media and by the government. As the
ACLU has written in its comments on Chelsea Manning, justice and the value of dissent are turned upside down,¶ When a
soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than
others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice
system. A legal system that doesn't distinguish between leaks to the press in the public interest
and treason against the nation will not only produce unjust results, but will deprive the public of
critical information that is necessary for democratic accountability.[ ii]¶ Americans now live in a bubble of
intense privatization, commodification and civic illiteracy. The public does not merely dissolve into the private; the private is all
that is left. One consequence is that citizenship is reconfigured largely within the confines of a consumer culture and at the same
time the meaning and rights that accompany citizenship are excluded more and more from vast groups of the American public.
Within the increasing corporatization of everyday life, market values replace social values and
people with the education and means appear more and more willing to retreat into the safe,
privatized enclaves of the family, religion and consumption. Those without the luxury of such choices pay a
terrible price in what Zygmunt Bauman calls the "hard currency of human suffering."[iii]¶ The American public yawns as they are
inundated with statistics that should shock, and they are complacent in the face of information that should make them ashamed. For
example, in the richest country in the world, the "U.S. ranked 27th out of 30 for child poverty," "over 350,000 Americans with
advanced degrees applied for food stamps in 2010,"millions of young people are crushed under the burden of student loans,
increasing numbers of youth are homeless, living on the streets, and more than 50 million Americans are uninsured.[iv]
Inequality in wealth, power and income has created a country filled with gated communities on the
one hand and zones of abandonment and massive poverty and human suffering on the other.[v] The middle
class pays higher taxes than many corporations, while the super-rich get even richer. For instance, "each of the Koch brothers saw
his investments grow by $6 billion in one year, which is three million dollars per hour based on a 40-hour 'work' week."[vi] Equally
obscene and symptomatic is the example of Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, who made $21 million last year
and received a bonus of $5 million in January 2013. At the same time, the poorest 47 percent have no wealth, 146 million
Americans, or one in two, are low-income or poor, and a "third of families with young children are now in poverty."[vii] ¶ Unlike some
theorists who suggest that politics as a site of contestation, critical exchange and engagement has either come to an end or is in a
state of terminal arrest, especially in light of the withering of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, I believe that the current
depressing state of politics points to the urgent challenge of reformulating the crisis of
democracy and the radical imagination as part of the fundamental crisis of vision, meaning,
education and political agency. Politics devoid of vision degenerates into cynicism or appropriates a view of power
equated with domination. Lost from such accounts is the recognition that democracy has to be struggled over - even
in the face of a most appalling crisis of educational opportunity and political agency. ¶ There is also too
little attention paid to the fact that the struggle over politics and democracy is strongly connected to
creating and sustaining public spheres where individuals can be engaged as political agents
equipped with the skills, capacities and knowledge they need not only to actually perform as
autonomous political agents but also to believe that such struggles are worth taking up. The
formative cultures, institutions and modes of critical agency necessary for a vibrant democracy do not exist in a culture in which
knowledge is fragmented, power concentrated in few hands and time is reduced to a deprivation for large segments of the public one consequence of which is the endless struggle by many Americans simply to try to survive at the level of everyday life. The
colonizing of time, space and power suggests taking back people's time in an era when the majority must work more than ever to
make ends meet. There is no democracy in a country in which for most people time is a deprivation rather than a luxury. Time is
crippled when it is trapped within an endless need to fight to merely survive in order to have enough to eat, have access to decent
health care, day care and a social wage. The struggle over time is inextricably linked to a struggle over space, institutions, public
spheres, the public good, power, the future and the nature of politics itself. ¶ In a country in which the social contract is dissolving, the
social wage is on life support and social protections are viewed as a pathology, democracy becomes a shadow of itself and choice
becomes impotent and an empty slogan because of the constraints imposed on the 99 percent by vast inequalities in wealth,
income, power and opportunity. The growth of cynicism in American society may say less about the reputed apathy of the populace
than it might about the bankruptcy of the old political languages and the need for a new language and vision for clarifying
intellectual, ethical and political projects, especially as they work to reframe questions of agency, ethics and meaning for a
substantive democracy. As Bauman has argued, "hope nowadays feels frail, vulnerable, and fissiparous
precisely because we can't locate a viable and sufficiently potent agency that can be relied on to
make the words flesh."[viii] If democratic agents are in short supply, so is the formative culture that
is necessary to create them - revealing a cultural apparatus that is more than an economic entity
or industry. It is also a public pedagogy machine - an all-embracing totality of educational sites that produces particular
narratives about the world, what it means to be a citizen and what role education will play in a powerful and unchecked militaryindustrial-security-surveillance state. Stanley Aronowitz is right in arguing that:¶ [The] social character has become entwined with
communications technology. … This intricate interlock between cultural institutions, political power and everyday life constitutes a
new moment of history. It has become the primary machinery of domination. And a central aspect of domination is the abrogation of
concept that we can know the totality, but are condemned to understand the division of the world as a series of specializations.
Thus, the well-known fragmentation of social life is both a result of the re-arrangement of social space and the modes by which
knowledge is produced, disseminated and ingested. The cultural apparatus is largely responsible for the intellectual darkness that
has enveloped us.*¶ We live in a world in which any viable notion of hope has to recognize that the
social media, or the cultural apparatus as C.W. Mills once acknowledged, has "formed a new mass
sensibility, a new condition for the widespread acceptance of the capitalist system" and that our
social character has become inextricably merged and shaped by the new social media." [ix] Most
importantly, the existing cultural apparatuses in all of their diversity are the most powerful educational tools of the 21st century
shaping not only individual desires, dreams, needs and fears but the nature of our understanding of politics and social life in general.
Yet, such cultural apparatuses that range from magazines, film, newspapers, television and various instruments of the social media
and platforms made available through the Internet constitute one of the few spheres left in which hope can be nourished
through the production and circulation of alternative knowledge, ideas, values, dreams desires
and modes of subjectivity. The fight over the cultural apparatus may be the most significant
struggle that can be waged in the name of hope for a better and more just future. ¶ As power is
separated from politics, it becomes more reckless, arrogant and death-dealing. No longer viewed as
accountable, casino capitalism and its minions turn savage in their pursuit of wealth and the accumulation. All bets are off and
everything is fodder for increasing the wealth of the bankers, hedge fund managers and the corporate elite. Ensconced in
culture of cruelty, neoliberal power relations have become global, eschewing any sense of
responsibility to an ethics of care, justice and spiritual well-being. Responsibility now floats like a polluted
cloud signaling a dystopian future - a symbol of both extreme savagery and corporate irresponsibility. But there is more at work here
than a retreat into cynicism or a collective silence in the face of a normalizing disimagination machine. There is a need to
craft a new political language that requires a more realistic, impatient and militant sense of hope.
Hope, in this instance, is the precondition for individual and social struggle, involving the ongoing
practice of critical education in a wide variety of sites and the renewal of civic courage among
citizens who wish to address pressing social problems.¶ Hope is not an individual fantasy or a recourse to a
romanticized and unrealistic view of the world. On the contrary, it is a subversive force that enables those who care
about democracy and its fate to not mistake the difficulty of individual and collective agency with
the urgent need to shape it in the interest of the arc of justice and the promise of a democracy to
come. In opposition to those who seek to turn hope into a new slogan or punish and dismiss efforts to look beyond the horizon of
the given, progressives need to resurrect a language of resistance and possibility, a language in
which hope is viewed as both a project and a pedagogical condition for providing a sense of
opposition and engaged struggle. As a project, Andrew Benjamin insists, hope must be viewed as "a
structural condition of the present rather than as the promise of a future , the continual promise of a future
that will always have to have been better."[x] Rather than viewed as an individual proclivity, hope must be seen as part of
a broader politics that acknowledges those social, economic, spiritual and cultural conditions in
the present that make certain kinds of agency and democratic politics possible. ¶ The late philosopher
Ernst Bloch rightly argued that hope must be concrete, a spark that not only reaches out beyond the
surrounding emptiness of capitalist relations, anticipating a better world in the future, a world that
speaks to us by presenting tasks based on the challenges of the present time. For Bloch, hope
becomes concrete when it links the possibility of the "not yet" with forms of political agency
animated by a determined effort to engage critically with the past and present to address pressing social problems and realizable
tasks.[xi] Bloch believes that hope cannot be removed from the world and is not "something like nonsense or absolute fancy; rather
it is not yet in the sense of a possibility; that it could be there if we could only do something for it."[xii] As a discourse of critique and
social transformation, hope in Bloch's view foregrounds the crucial relationship between critical education
and political agency, on the one hand, and the concrete struggles needed, on the other, to give substance
to the recognition that every present is incomplete. This is a discourse that must be reclaimed,
used and mobilized in the interest of a radical hope willing to struggle collectively, take risks and
make education central to any viable notion of transformative politics.¶ Prophecy, moral witness and civic
courage matter more than ever in American society. And we see hits of such practices in the rise of public intellectuals such as
Michael Lerner, Stanley Aronowitz, Carol Becker, Angela Davis, Chris Hedges, Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers, Robin D.G. Kelley,
Noam Chomsky and too many others to name. We also see the power of collective hope in the increasing
resistance by unions, workers and young people to the attack on all things public in Wisconsin, North
Carolina, Maine and other states now controlled by right-wing Republican extremists. In this instance, the longing for a more
humane society does not collapse into a retreat from the world but emerges out of critical and practical
engagements with present policies, institutional formations and everyday practices . Hope in this
context does not ignore the worse dimensions of human suffering, exploitation and social relations; on the contrary, it acknowledges
the need to sustain the "capacity to see the worst and offer more than that for our consideration."[xiii] This reclaiming of hope from
the idiocy of consumer and celebrity culture, from a market that turns hope into a commodity and from a government that kills hope
with its electronic gulags, its proliferating war zones and its militarizing ideologies and policies is a crucial element for the
reclamation of not just hope but a fundamental element of politics itself. ¶ Hence, hope is more than a politics, it is also
the outcome of those pedagogical practices and struggles that tap into memory and lived
experiences while at the same time linking individual responsibility with a progressive sense of
social change. As a form of utopian longing, democratic hope opens up horizons of comparison by evoking not just different
histories but different public memories and futures; at the same time, it substantiates the importance of ambivalence
while problematizing certainty or, as Paul Ricoeur has suggested, it serves as "a major resource as the weapon against
closure."[xiv]Democratic hope is a subversive force when it pluralizes politics by opening up a space for dissent, making authority
accountable, becoming an activating presence in promoting social transformation. ¶ The current limits of the utopian imagination are
related, in part, to the failure of intellectuals, academics, artists, workers, educators and progressives to imagine what pedagogical
conditions might be necessary to bring into being forms of political agency that might expand the operations of individual rights,
social provisions and democratic freedoms. At the same time, a politics and pedagogy of hope is neither a blueprint for
the future nor a form of social engineering but a belief that different futures are possible, holding open matters
of contingency, context and indeterminacy. It is only through critical forms of education that human beings can learn
about the limits of the present and the conditions necessary for them to "combine a gritty sense of limits with a lofty vision of
possibility."[xv]Equally crucial is the belief that hope needs to translate into collective struggles and disciplined social movements
that go beyond popular protest and what Aronowitz calls "signs without organization."[xvi] Such struggles are crucial to develop
disciplined national organizations, infrastructures, cultural apparatuses and modes of collaboration among diverse artists,
intellectuals, workers and others to address the totality of issues confronting American society and the need to get at the roots of
those injustices weighing down on America like an all-consuming plague.¶ Democratic hope poses the important
challenge of how to reclaim social agency within a broader struggle to deepen the possibilities for
social justice and global democracy. Judith Butler is right in insisting that "there is more hope in the world
when we can question what is taken for granted, especially about what it is to be human."[ xvii]
Bauman extends this insight by arguing that the resurrection of any viable notion of political and social
agency is dependent upon a culture of questioning , whose purpose, as he puts it, is to "keep the forever
unexhausted and unfulfilled human potential open, fighting back all attempts to foreclose and pre-empt the further unraveling of
human possibilities, prodding human society to go on questioning itself and preventing that questioning from ever stalling or being
declared finished."[xviii] Neither the death of hope, its commodification nor its romanticization are enough to explain the absence of
struggle in the United States. Mass ignorance matters, as does a political economy that manufactures it,
but at stake here are larger issues about those modes of education, socialization and the
production of subjects in American society that willingly buy into their own oppression and
subjugation.¶ The fear of taking power has deeper roots in the American public than simply the plague of not knowing. While
the pedagogical nature of politics cannot be disavowed, it must be supplemented into a deeper
understanding of how capitalism subverts people's needs, how depth psychology works through dominant
cultural apparatuses as part of a broader public pedagogy that cripples the spirit, redirects the drive for pleasure and subverts the
imagination. This is a different war waged by neoliberal society - not just on the body and mind but
on the individual and collective psyche. And if the left and progressives are to address this element of low-intensity
warfare on the home front they will have to connect hope to a sustained inquiry, as Aronowitz argues, over the shaping of the
political and cultural unconscious.[xix] Outrage has gone astray, losing its moral and political moorings, and has been absorbed in
self-deprecation, depression, cynicism, a fear of the other, a hatred of poor minorities, a distrust of the Arab world and a disgust for
democratic social bonds.¶ War has become not simply a strategy but a way of life in the United States. It
has been elevated to an all-encompassing ideology and politics that includes a view of all citizens
as potential terrorists in need of surveillance and an ongoing attack on dissidents, critical journalists,
educators and any public sphere capable of questioning authority. Hope provides a potential register
of resistance, a new language, a different understanding of politics and a view of the future in
which the voices of the public are heard rather than silenced. Hope also accentuates how politics might be
played out on the terrain of imagination and desire as well as in material relations of power and concrete social formations.
Freedom and justice, in this instance, have to be mediated through the connection between civic
education and political agency, which presupposes that the goal of hope is not to liberate the individual
from the social - a central tenet of neoliberalism - but to take seriously the notion that the individual can only be
liberated through the social.¶ Democratic hope is a subversive, defiant practice that makes power
visible and interrogates and resists those events, social relations and ideas that pose a threat to
democracy. It refuses to escape into firewall of obtuse academic discourse removed from the problems of everyday life, it
rejects the alleged neutrality of mainstream media, rebuffs the discourse of idiocy and simplification that characterizes celebrity
culture, and it disallows a sterile and empty discourse of common sense, which wages a war on informed criticism, the imagination
and the very possibility of imagining a better world. Hope at its best provides a link, however transient, provisional and
contextual, between passion, vision and critique, on the one hand, and engagement and transformation,
for such a notion of hope to be consequential it has to be grounded in a pedagogical
project that has some hold on the present. Hope becomes meaningful to the degree that it identifies agencies and
processes, offers alternatives to an age of profound pessimism , reclaims an ethic of compassion and justice,
and struggles for those institutions in which equality, freedom and justice flourish as part of the
ongoing struggle for a global democracy.¶ Yet, such hopes do not materialize out of thin air. They have to be
nourished, developed, debated, examined and acted upon to become meaningful. And this takes time,
on the other. But
and demands what might be called an "impatient patience." When outrage dissipates into silence, crippling the mind, imagination,
spirit, and collective will, it becomes almost impossible to fight the galloping forces of authoritarianism that beset the United States
and many other countries. But one cannot dismiss as impossible what is simply difficult, even if such
difficulty defies hope itself. Bauman is right, once again, in arguing that "As to our hopes: hope is one human quality we
are bound never to lose without losing our humanity. But we may be similarly certain that a safe haven in which to drop its anchor
will take a very long time to be found."[xx] As the current administration tries to persuade the American public and a cravenly
Congress that military intervention is necessary in Syria, Obama is betting against hope - against the possibility that his investment
in war, state violence and secrecy will be challenged by the American public. There is more at stake here than a military
strike against Syria, there is the Hobbesian imaginary of endless permanent war and the presence of a security-warfare state that
can only imagine violence as a solution to whatever problem it identifies. The future of American society lies in
opposition to the warfare state, its warfare culture, its mad machinery of violence and its gross
misdeeds. State violence is not a measure of greatness and honor. Such violence trades in incredulous appeals to security and
fear mongering in its efforts to paralyze the impulse for justice, the culture of questioning, and the civic courage necessary to refuse
and oppose complicity with state terrorism. Hope turns radical when it exposes the acts of aggression against
injustices perpetuated by a militarized state that can only dream of war. But hope does more than
critique, dismantle, and expose the ideologies, values, institutions, and social relations that are pushing so many
countries today into authoritarianism. It begs for more than a retreat into the language of criticism by developing a
renewed sense of what it means to imagine otherwise, rethink a more just sense of the future,
reclaim the principles of a real democracy, and organize a political discourse that inhabits not
common sense but reflective sense, good sense—a sense that the struggle is not over and demands a
broad based social movement in which the struggle for a new democratic global social order can
be constructed.
OFF
Counterplan: The United States should legalize and implement a uniform, federal,
refundable tax credit, regardless of income, for nearly all donation of cadaveric
human organs.
Organs sales provoke backlash- tax credits for donation are distinct, solve the
aff, avoid backlash, and accommodate altruism
Clamon, 8 -- clerk for Judge Melloy of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
[Joseph, J.D. University of Iowa, he has held adjunct professorships in the Drake University Law School and Drake University
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, as well as serving as an instructor at the Northwestern University School of Law, "Tax
Policy as a Lifeline: Encouraging Blood and Organ Donation Through Tax Credits," Annals of Health Law, Winter 2008, 17 Ann.
Health L. 67, l/n, accessed 8-31-14]
IV. Possible Tax Policy Alternatives
An alternative to compensation or noncommercial systems, which raise serious ethical and practical concerns, is the
use of tax policy to encourage blood and organ donation. As Parker and Winslade state in their article Tax Policy
and the Blood Supply in which they advocate of the use of a charitable deduction for blood donations: Tax incentives would
enhance a potential donor's willingness to give by reflecting the value society ascribes to the gift
rather than by creating an economic incentive in and of itself ... [the tax incentive would be] only
a simple acknowledgement of generosity, a gesture of appreciation, or a token of esteem - not a
financial incentive or reward. n191 This type of favorable tax treatment would accomplish four important
objectives: "(1) provide an incentive designed to stimulate corporate sponsorship of blood drives; n192 (2) in some manner
recognize the generosity of blood donors; (3) protect the safety of the blood supply; and (4) accommodate established
ethical norms." n193 To accomplish these goals, donations could be encouraged either by permitting a charitable deduction for donating either blood or organs or providing a tax credit. This
section will explore both options, and explain why the tax credit is the stronger proposal. A. Offering a Charitable Deduction for Donations Allowing taxpayers to take a charitable deduction for donations of blood
or organs offers numerous advantages. First, it would preserve the altruistic nature of donation. n194 Second, "it would not conflict with the ethical proscription against the exploitation of disadvantaged groups."
n195 Because the tax structure is progressive in nature, the value of the deduction would become greater the more income earned by the taxpayer, and conversely, its value would diminish the less income
earned by the taxpayer. n196 At the lower levels of the income scale the deduction would be "swallowed" by [*91] the personal exemption and standard deduction. n197 A charitable deduction would not serve as
a disproportionate incentive to the poor, but rather, using a charitable deduction might actually "unfairly deprive the less affluent donor of a benefit." n198 Third, it is unlikely that the tax incentive poses as
significant threat to the safety of the blood supply as would a direct cash payment. n199 Fourth, a tax incentive would not produce an inequitable allocation of organs, but rather would preserve the current
allocation system under UNOS. n200 Fifth, offering a charitable deduction would not undermine the basic ethics and morality that underlie the current foundation of our donation system. n201 Despite all of these
advantages, implementing a charitable deduction for donation would require significant alterations to the tax code and would pose daunting administrative challenges. The tax code does not consider the human
body to be property and does not permit deductions for contributions of services. n202 To allow a deduction, the IRS would have to allow deductions for contributions of services or classify the human body as
property. Either change would be a significant policy shift. If the body were to be considered property, the IRS would face many complicating issues, including: (1) whether "during life or upon death, [a person]
could actually generate ... additional income, gift, or estate tax liability"; n203 (2) how to determine the fair market value of the human body, organs, and blood; (3) whether blood or organs constitute a long-term
capital gain; (4) the basis in a human body; and (5) whether some blood and organs are worth more than others. n204 These questions are complex and controversial. A strict interpretation of the tax code would
not make a distinction between a taxpayer who donates blood or an organ and any other commercial activity. n205 "For example, the Tax Court has found that income derived from the sale of blood plasma [*92]
is conceptually the same as that generated by the sale of any other product, without regard to "the sanctity of the human body.'" n206 Thus, "the excess of the fair market value of [blood or organs] received over
the cost or other basis" of the transferred blood or organ constitutes taxable income. n207 If it is taxable income, fair market value would have to be determined. Courts have held that fair market value is "the price
at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell..." n208 Applying this notion to the human body is exceptionally complex.
Parker and Winslade state, "the very idea that a "willing' buyer could act without "compulsion' in a contract involving the exchange of a life-giving thing is an anomaly of thought." n209 Furthermore, as discussed
in Sections II.A.2.d and e, "the law precludes the existence of a legitimate market in which buyers and sellers may trade in these "goods' ... ." n210 This fact does not "render them without value, as the market in
illicit drugs so readily attests," but it does make valuation difficult and would likely prompt substantial debate and increase the possibility of costly litigation. n211 To provide a charitable deduction for donation it
would also be necessary to determine the basis in a human body. n212 Parker and Winslade explain that: Because we do not purchase our bodies or otherwise acquire them in a transaction from which we can
derive any identifiable cost, it would appear that we have a basis of zero in these, our most physical of assets. Accordingly, a participant in [an organ] exchange would realize income in an amount equal to the full
value of the organ received, which could be significant. n213 If the basis is not zero, would the basis in all bodies be equal? Since the fair market value of the donated organ or blood would have to be determined,
would the blood or organ of a younger person be worth more than that of an older person? Would the blood or organ of a healthy person be worth more than that of a person who engaged in "unhealthy" activities
such as smoking or drinking? Would someone whose blood type is O, the most common blood type, be worth more or less than type AB, the least [*93] common type? n214 How would such values be
substantiated? These are just a few of many difficult questions that are created by such a system. A charitable deduction for donation also has implications for the gift and estate tax provisions in the tax code.
n215 The IRS General Counsel stated: If blood is property, then any part of the human body is property. Gift tax is imposed ... on the transfer of property by gift. If any part of the body is property then a gift tax
should be levied on the gift of a kidney for transplant if it is not given through a charitable organization. Likewise, a taxpayer's estate includes the value of all property in which he had an interest at death. The
value of a decedent's body should therefore be includible in his estate. In today's world where transplants take place daily, these issues are not illusory. n216 Finally, the current tax code requires that a charitable
deduction be made ""to or for the use of' a qualified charitable organization." n217 The IRS would likely have to either alter or clarify this regulation as well. Accordingly, the tax code would have to be significantly
amended to provide a charitable deduction for blood or organ donation. Implementing a charitable deduction poses other administrative challenges. One administrative challenge, especially for blood donors, is
that donors would be subject to "the same substantiation requirements imposed on taxpayers who claim deductions for other forms of charitable contributions." n218 Another administrative obstacle is that current
FDA regulations require that blood be labeled as having been collected from either paid or volunteer donors. n219 Permitting a charitable deduction would likely require either an alteration or clarification of these
FDA rules. Accordingly, there are administrative obstacles in addition to tax law issues that would encumber implementation of a charitable deduction for blood or organ donation. B. Granting a Tax Credit for
The creation of a tax credit for donations is a less administratively complex means of
reaching the same objectives without opening the Pandora's Box of deciding whether the human
body is property and how to [*94] determine the fair market value of a donor's blood and organs. Under
this proposal, a person would receive a tax credit for agreeing to be a donor. n220 The tax credit system offers the same
advantages as the charitable deduction, but does not require the IRS to change its interpretation that the
human body is not property. Further, the tax credit would not require any fair market value analysis of
blood or organs. The credit would also preserve the altruistic nature of the donation and would not
exploit the disadvantaged. n221 Additionally, a tax credit, like the deduction system, would not pose a threat to the safety
of the blood supply and would not produce an inequitable allocation of organs. Similar to the charitable deduction, a tax credit
would not undermine the basic ethics and morality that underlie the foundation of the current
donation system. As with almost all of the proposals made to date, the tax credit would incur the same substantiation
Donations
problems, FDA regulation issues, and the question regarding the "to or for the use of" requirement as the charitable deduction. Yet,
unlike the charitable deduction, a tax credit would not force significant changes to be made to the rest of the tax code. The IRS
would not have to choose whether to allow deductions for services or classify the body as property. This problem is not created by a
credit. A tax credit does not raise sensitive questions regarding the fair market value of body parts and fluids, or whether some
people's organs and blood are worth more than another person's blood or organs. People would neither have to claim their bodies
as assets upon their death nor would they have to determine their basis. Thus, a tax credit offers the same benefits as the charitable
deduction without the statutory consistency problems created by a deduction. A tax credit creates an incentive to
attract potential donors without creating a commercial market , changing the donation system to an "opt out" approach, defining the body
as property, or imposing any other significant policy choices. In almost all of the literature on methods of encouraging organ donation, five main concerns are consistently raised: (1) destroying the benefits of
altruism; (2) coercion of the poor; (3) inequitable allocation of organs; (4) creating family conflict; and (5) concerns of basic morality. n222 A tax credit for blood and organ donation does not raise any of these
concerns, but rather protects the values they espouse. [*95] Moreover, the tax credit proposed would attain at least three of the four objectives set forth by Parker and Winslade in their charitable deduction
proposal: (1) recognizing the generosity of donors; (2) not endangering the safety of the blood supply; and (3) accommodating established ethical norms. n223 The fourth objective, encouraging corporate
sponsorship of blood drives, n224 could easily be accomplished by creating a provision in the proposed tax credit statute offering corporations a tax credit for organizing blood drives. n225 Similar to the individual
incentive in the model statute in this article, which gives incentives for donating more than once, the credit could increase for each additional blood drive, up to a defined limit. Two issues that must be addressed
to use a tax credit to encourage blood and organ donation are whether the tax credit should be refundable or nonrefundable and when the taxable event is realized and recognized such that the taxpayer may
obtain the tax credit. Parker and Winslade propose the use of a refundable tax credit, which can reduce one's tax liability below zero. n226 "[A] refundable credit is applied first to reduce or eliminate one's tax
liability, with any unused amount being paid out to the taxpayer in cash; the amount of any credit in excess of the recipient's tax liability would, in effect, represent a government subsidy to him." n227 A refundable
tax credit would therefore not only cause the federal government to lose essential tax revenue, but would also force the government to spend money that could otherwise be allocated to address other significant
public policy issues. Refundable tax credits are typically used only in circumstances where the government wishes to allocate money to achieve a fundamental societal objective, for example the earned income
tax credit is intended to assist the poor. n228 Taking into consideration the economic implications of a refundable tax credit, in particular its impact on the availability of government resources for other public policy
priorities, this article proposes the use of a nonrefundable tax credit, which would not permit taxpayers to receive a refund if their tax owed was reduced below zero. This type of credit would attain the objective of
encouraging donation, but would not financially overburden the government. Blood and organ donation could effectively be encouraged through the use of a nonrefundable tax credit without requiring [*96] the
government to spend money that could be used for other public policy purposes. Further, if empirical data demonstrates after several years that the nonrefundable tax credit provides insufficient incentive, the tax
credit could be transformed into a refundable tax credit if necessary. The second issue concerning the timing of when the taxable event is realized and recognized has significant implications for organ donation.
Should a person realize and recognize the tax credit when he or she pledges to donate blood or organs? Or should it be when a person actually makes the donation? For example, if a person promises to donate
her organs at the time of death when she is twenty-five and she dies at eighty-five, may she obtain the benefit of the tax credit at twenty-five or at the time of her death? This issue is not as significant for blood
donation, because blood donation can generally occur immediately within a given fiscal year in which the taxpayer seeks the tax credit. Parker and Winslade propose a refundable tax credit that is realized and
recognized at the time when the taxpayer agrees to donate his organs irrespective of when death occurs. n229 This article proposes the use of a tax credit that must be realized and recognized at the moment of
donation, not upon a promise of future donation because it achieves the stated objective of encouraging donation while avoiding potential conflict that might arise under a system in which persons could take the
tax credit prior to actual donation. The IRS does not treat a contribution as permanently set aside unless the chance that the contribution will not be applied to the donor's intended charitable purpose is so remote
that it is negligible. n230 As discussed earlier, the chance that a potential organ donor's contribution will not be applied is not remote, but rather substantial n231 Parker and Winslade intelligently suggest that a
database, akin to the National Practitioner Data Bank, could be used to document a taxpayer's promise to donate and that such a promise would thereafter make donation mandatory. n232 Further, Parker and
Winslade pragmatically suggest immunizing providers from liability when they rely in good faith on the database when retrieving organs. n233 These solutions, though beneficial, are insufficient. Given the history
of conflict over donative intent, disputes between family members regarding organ donation, and questions of capacity of the donor, substantial controversy and costly litigation is likely [*97] to arise under such a
system. This conflict is avoidable if the tax credit is permitted only at the time of donation. As discussed above, this position is consistent with current IRS guidance. n234 Thus, a nonrefundable tax credit realized
and recognized at the time of giving is a unique vehicle through which blood and organ donation can be encouraged, while guarding against the hazards of a commercial system and maintaining the current tax
treatment of charitable giving and the human body. The following are two model statutes that offer guidance as to how a nonrefundable tax credit section in the tax code might operate. These statutes are by no
means the only way a tax credit could work. They are intended to be but one example of how donation could be encouraged through the use of a nonrefundable tax credit. § XXX. Qualified Blood Donation
Programs (a) Allowance of credit. (1) In general. - There shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year with respect to each qualifying donation of blood products by the
taxpayer an amount equal to the per donation amount. (2) Per donation amount - For the purposes of paragraph (1), the per donation amount shall be determined as follows: In the case of any taxable year in
which the The per donation amount taxpayer donated blood products: is - Once in the taxable year $ 500 Twice in the taxable year $ 1000 Three to six times in the taxable year n235 $ 2000 (b) Limitation based
on adjusted gross income - (1) In general - The amount of the credit allowable under subsection (a) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by $ 50 for each $ 1000 (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer's
adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold amount. (2) Threshold amount. - For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "threshold amount" means - (A) $ 110,000 in the case of a joint return [*98] (B) $ 75,000 in
the case of an unmarried individual, and (C) $ 55,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return. (c) Qualifying blood product donation - For purposes of this section - (1) In general - The term
"qualifying blood production donation" means any donation of: (A) Blood products derived from human blood used for purposes of transfusion into another person or for federally-approved biomedical research. (B)
Any other products formulated via removal of human blood used for purposes of transfusion into another person or for federally-approved biomedical research. (d) Blood products - For purposes of this section (1) In general. The term "blood products" shall include human blood of any type, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma, and any other federally-approved blood-derived product that may be legally
donated under the National Organ Transplant Act. (2) Sperm, ova, and hair are not covered by this section. n236 (e) Donation to self exception - (1) In general. The term "qualifying blood product donation" shall
not include the removal of human blood from one individual and replacement of that blood into the same individual at the same or a later time. § XXX. Qualified Organ Donation Programs (a) Allowance of credit. (1) In general. - There shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year with respect to each qualifying human organ donation(s) by the taxpayer an amount equal to the per
donation amount. (2) Per donation amount - For the purposes of paragraph (1), the per donation amount shall be- (A) $ 5,000 for the donation of at least one human organ to either another individual or
individuals, a medical center for donation to an unspecified person(s), to the cause of science. (B) $ 10,000 for the donation of all of the taxpayer's organs to either another individual or individuals, a medical
center for donation to unspecified person(s), to the cause of science. [*99] (b) Limitation based on adjusted gross income - (1) There shall be no limit on the amount of credit allowable under subsection (a) based
on adjusted gross income. (c) Qualifying organ donation(s) - For purposes of this section - (1) In general - The term "qualifying organ donation(s)" means any donation of: (A) A part or structure of the human
anatomy adapted for the purpose of some specific function or functions. (B) Sperm, ova, and hair are not covered by this section. n237 (d) Donation to self exception - (1) In general. The term "qualifying organ
donation" shall not include the removal of human organ(s) from one individual and replacement of the organ(s) into the same individual at the same or a later time. V. Conclusion The demand for blood and human
organs will continue to grow as society's ability to save and improve lives by transplanting more parts of the body increases. To have any chance of meeting the ever-increasing level of demand for blood and
organs, the current donation system must be modified to encourage donation in order to substantially increase the quantity of available healthy, compatible blood and organs. Some individuals, such as pure
Some may be attracted to a direct
compensation system, but many people vehemently object to such an outright offer of
remuneration. n239 A reasonable alternative is the use of a tax credit as an incentive to "attract the
attention of those potential donors who wouldn't be willing to sell their blood in a purely commercial
transaction" but who would accept favorable tax treatment as a "token of public appreciation of
their generosity." n240 It may even "arouse existing but dormant inclinations toward altruism." n241
For these reasons, tax credits are an effective, ethically acceptable, and perhaps even ethically preferable means
of encouraging blood and organ donation.
altruists, "would donate without any external stimulus," n238 while others would never donate regardless of the incentives offered.
OFF
Patient-doctor trust is high
Giroux, 14 -- Bloomberg reporter
[Greg, "Doctors Running for Congress Ditch Suits for White Coats," Bloomberg, 7-13-14, www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0714/doctors-running-for-congress-ditch-suits-for-white-coats.html, accessed 8-24-14]
On the 2014 campaign trail, white is the new olive drab. After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., political candidates with military
ties showed up in their ads in uniform. This year, those with medical backgrounds are attacking Obamacare wearing their white
coats. It’s no accident: polls show nurses and doctors are among the most trusted people in America. Politicians are among
the least trusted. All three commercials for Monica Wehby, an Oregon Republican seeking to unseat Democratic Senator Jeff
Merkley, have shown her in a hospital setting. “As a pediatric neurosurgeon, I know firsthand how devastating Obamacare is for
Oregon families and patients,” Wehby said in one of her ads, which was interspersed with footage of the candidate in surgical
scrubs. The “Grey’s Anatomy” backdrop comes as Republicans seek to gain control of the U.S. Senate and, with their House
majority counterparts, pass a law repealing 2010’s Affordable Care Act. The quest is gaining urgency as Americans become more
accepting of the law. Republicans need a net gain of six seats for a Senate majority. Fifty-three percent of Americans oppose the
law, though just 32 percent say it should be repealed, according to a Bloomberg National Poll last month. Fifty-six percent say they
want to keep Obamacare with “small modifications.” Wardrobe Messaging The latest wardrobe preferences for political ads also put
distance between some candidates and the unpopular Congress they are seeking to join. About 82 percent of Americans say nurses
have a “high or very high level” of honesty and ethical standards, the top spot among 22 professions rated in a December Gallup
survey. Pharmacists were tied for second at 70 percent, and medical doctors were tied with military veterans for fourth at 69
percent. Medical professionals have high approval ratings because people view them as “primary care-givers,” said Frank Newport,
Gallup’s editor-in-chief.
Deceased organ donation system violates trust in the medical profession:
Marisa Finley, 2014 (University of Houston Law Center, Health Law & Policy Institute,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2418514, Accessed 10/18/2014, rwg)
5. Presumed
Consent With Opt - Out In systems based on presumed cons ent, organs are
automatically donated at death unless a contrary statement has been registered . 180 Presumed consent
systems exist in Singapore, and are also common in many areas of Europe, including Austria, Belgium, France, Norway and Spain.
181 However, as pr eviously discussed, presumed consent has not been embraced for solid organs in the United States. 182
Proponents of presumed consent policies argue that the policies are supported by statistics showing that Americans are largely in
favor of organ donation a nd implement ing the policies would result in an increase in donations. 183 However, such policies
raise concerns about coercion , state intrusion in private decisions , potential violations of fundamental
rights and the undermining of trust in the medical profession . 184 Additionally, the forced nature of presumed
consent policies is incompatible with American culture , liberty and freedoms, and academics have likened them to thievery.
Key to solve bioterror- research, response and treatment
Jacobs, 5 – MD; Boston University professor of medicine
[Alice, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory and Interventional Cardiology, "Rebuilding an Enduring Trust in Medicine,"
Circulation, 2005, circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/25/3494.full#xref-ref-3-1, accessed 8-18-14]
To be sure, we will learn about the emerging science and clinical practice of cardiovascular disease over the next four days. But
there is an internal disease of the heart that confronts us as scientists, as physicians, and as healthcare
professionals. It is a threat to us all—insidious and pervasive—and one that we unknowingly may spread. This threat is
one of the most critical issues facing our profession today. How we address this problem will shape the future of
medical care.¶ This issue is the erosion of trust.¶ Lack of trust is a barrier between our intellectual
renewal and our ability to deliver this new knowledge to our research labs, to our offices, to the bedside of
our patients, and to the public. Trust is a vital, unseen, and essential element in diagnosis, treatment, and
healing. So it is fundamental that we understand what it is, why it’s important in medicine, its recent decline, and what we can all
do to rebuild trust in our profession. Trust is intrinsic to the relationship between citizens around the world and the institutions that
serve their needs: government, education, business, religion, and, most certainly, medicine. ¶ Albert Einstein recognized the
importance of trust when he said, “Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust.”1 In our time,
trust has been broken, abused, misplaced, and violated. The media have been replete with commentaries, citing stories of
negligence, corruption, and betrayal by individuals and groups in the public and private sectors, from governments to corporations,
from educational institutions to the Olympic Organizing Committee. These all are front-page news. Perhaps the most extreme
example is terrorism, in which strangers use acts of violence to shatter trust and splinter society in an ongoing assault on our shared
reverence for human life.¶ Unfortunately, we are not immune in our own sphere of cardiovascular medicine. The physicianinvestigator conflicts of interest concerning enrollment of patients in clinical trials, the focus on medical and nursing errors, the high-
profile medical malpractice cases, the mandate to control the cost of health care in ways that may not be aligned with the best
interest of the patient—all of these undermine trust in our profession. At this time, when more and more public and private
institutions have fallen in public esteem, restoring trust in the healthcare professions will require that we understand the importance
of trust and the implications of its absence.¶ Trust is intuitive confidence and a sense of comfort that comes from the belief that we
can rely on an individual or organization to perform competently, responsibly, and in a manner considerate of our interests.2 It is
dynamic, it is fragile, and it is vulnerable. Trust can be damaged, but it can be repaired and restored. It is praised where it is evident
and acknowledged in every profession. Yet it is very difficult to define and quantify. ¶ Trust is easier to understand than to measure.
For us, trust may be particularly difficult to embrace because it is not a science. Few instruments have been designed to allow us to
evaluate it with any scientific rigor. Yet, trust is inherent to our profession, precisely because patients turn to us
in their most vulnerable moments, for knowledge about their health and disease. We know trust when
we experience it: when we advise patients in need of highly technical procedures that are associated with
increased risk or when we return from being away to learn that our patient who became ill waited for us to make a decision and
to discuss their concerns, despite being surrounded by competent colleagues acting on our behalf. ¶ Many thought leaders in
the medical field understand the importance of trust.3 When asked whether the public health
system could be overrun by public panic over SARS and bioterrorism, C enters for D isease C ontrol and
Prevention Director Julie Gerberding replied, “You can manage people if they trust you. We’ve put a
great deal of effort into improving state and local communications and scaled up our own public affairs capacity…we’re
building credibility, competence and trust.”4¶ Former H ealth and H uman S ervices Secretary Donna Shalala
also recognized the importance of trust when she said, “If we are to keep testing new med icine s and
new approaches to curing disease, we cannot compromise the trust and willingness of patients to
participate in clinical trials.”5¶ These seemingly intuitive concepts of the importance of trust in 21st century medicine
actually have little foundation in our medical heritage. In fact, a review of the early history of medicine is astonishingly devoid of
medical ethics. Even the Codes and Principles of Ethics of the American Medical Association, founded in 1847, required patients to
place total trust in their physician’s judgment, to obey promptly, and to “entertain a just and enduring sense of value of the services
rendered.”6 Such a bold assertion of the authority of the physician and the gratitude of the patient seems unimaginable today. ¶ It
was not until the early 1920s that role models such as Boston’s Richard Cabot linked patient-centered medical ethics with the best
that scientific medicine had to offer,6 and Frances Weld Peabody, the first Director of the Thorndike Memorial Laboratory at the
Boston City Hospital, crystallized the ethical obligation of the physician to his patient in his essay “The Care of the Patient.”7 In one
particularly insightful passage, Peabody captures the essence of the two elements of the physician’s ethical obligation: He must
know his professional business and he must trouble to know the patient well enough to draw conclusions, jointly with the patient, as
to what actions are indeed in the patient’s best interest. He states: “The treatment of a disease may be entirely impersonal: The
care of the patient must be completely personal. The significance of the intimate personal relationship
between physician and patient cannot be too strongly emphasized, for in an extraordinarily large
number of cases both diagnosis and treatment are directly dependent on it.” Truly, as Peabody said, “The
secret to the care of the patient…is in caring for the patient.”7¶ This concept that links the quality of the physicianpatient relationship to health outcomes has indeed stood the test of time. Trust has been shown to
be important in its own right. It is essential to patients, in their willingness to seek care, their willingness
to reveal sensitive information, their willingness to submit to treatment, and their willingness to
follow recommendations. They must be willing for us to be able.
Continual research solves and deters bioterror
Chyba 4 - Co-Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford Institute for International
Studies, and an Associate Professor at Stanford University
[Christopher & Alex Greninger, “Biotechnology and Bioterrorism: An Unprecedented World” Survival, 46:2, Summer 2004, http://iisdb.stanford.edu/pubs/20722/Chyba_2004.pdf]
In the absence of a comprehensive and effective system of global review of potential high-consequence research, we are
instead trapped in a kind of offence–defence arms race. Even as legitimate biomedical researchers develop
defences against biological pathogens, bad actors could in turn engineer countermeasures in a kind of directed
version of the way natural pathogens evolve resistance to anti-microbial drugs. The mousepox case provides a harbinger of
what is to come: just as the United States was stockpiling 300m doses of smallpox vaccine as a defence against a terrorist
smallpox attack, experimental modification of the mousepox virus showed how the vaccine could possibly be circumvented.
The United States is now funding research on antiviral drugs and other ways of combating smallpox that might be effective
against the engineered organism. Yet there are indications that smallpox can be made resistant to one of the few known
antiviral drugs. The future has the appearance of an eternal arms race of measures and countermeasures.
The ‘arms race’ metaphor should be used with caution; it too is in danger of calling up misleading analogies to the nuclear
arms race of the Cold War. First, the biological arms race is an offence–defence race , rather than a
competition between offensive means. Under the BWC, only defensive research is legitimate. But more fundamentally, the
driver of de facto offensive capabilities in this arms race is not primarily a particular adversary, but rather the ongoing global
advance of microbiological and biomedical research. Defensive measures are in a race with nefarious
applicationsof basic research, much of which is itself undertaken for protection against natural disease. In a sense, we
are in an arms race with ourselves. It is hard to see how this arms race is stable – an offence granted comparable resources
would seem to be necessarily favoured. As with ballistic missile defence, particular defensive measures may be defeated by
offensive countermeasures. In
the biological case, implementing defensive measures will require not
only research but drug development and distribution plans. Offensive measures need not exercise this care, although
fortunately they will likely face comparative resource constraints (especially if not associated with a state programme), and
may find that some approaches (for example, to confer antibiotic resistance) have the simultaneous effect of inadvertently
reducing a pathogen’s virulence. The defence must always guard against committing the fallacy of the last move, whereas the
offence may embrace the view of the Irish Republican Army after it failed to assassinate the British cabinet in the 1984
Brighton bombing: ‘Today we were unlucky, but remember we have only to be lucky once – you will have to be lucky
always’.40 At the very least, the defence will have to be vigilant and collectively smarter than the offence. The
only way for the defence to win convincingly in the biological arms race would seem to be to succeed in
discovering and implementing certain de facto last-move defences, at least on an organism-by-organism
basis. Perhaps there are defences, or a web of defences, that will prove too difficult for any plausible non-state actor to
engineer around. Whether such defences exist is unclear at this time, but their exploration should be a long-term
research goal of US biodefence efforts. Progress might also have an important impact on international public
health. One of the ‘Grand Challenges’ identified by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in its $200m initiative to improve
global health calls for the discovery of drugs that minimise the emergence of drug resistance – a kind of ‘last move’ defence
against the evolutionary countermeasures of natural microbes.41 Should a collection of such defensive moves
prove possible, bioterrorism might ultimately succumb to a kind of globalised dissuasion by denial :42
non-state groups would calculate that they could not hope to achieve dramatic results through
biological programmes and would choose to direct their efforts elsewhere.
Extinction- engineered pathogens
Sandberg, 8 -- Oxford University Future of Humanity Institute research fellow
[Anders, PhD in computation neuroscience, and Milan Cirkovic, senior research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of
Belgrade, "How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 9-9-2008, thebulletin.org/how-canwe-reduce-risk-human-extinction, accessed 8-13-14]
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been
made in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global
thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in
synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level
pandemics. The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more
accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are
self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive. Pathogens have
been implicated in the extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by
reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple
species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of engineered
pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of causing human
extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to improve at a
rate rivaling Moore's Law.
Disease reinforces conditions that produce poverty and structural violence
Rees 15 (Anna, “Diseases and the Links to Poverty,” January, January, http://en.reset.org/knowledge/diseases-and-linkspoverty)
Diseases and the Links to Poverty Poverty
and disease are stuck in an ongoing, vicious relationship . One
goes a long way towards intensifying the other with studies demonstrating that infection rates of
certain diseases are highest in regions where poverty is rife. According to the World Bank, an estimated 1.2
billion live in extreme poverty (defined as those who live on less than 1,25 USD per day) worldwide. Running parallel to statistics
about global poverty are statistics about infectious diseases. Terms such as “neglected tropical diseases” and “infectious diseases
of poverty” are employed to define a number of infectious diseases more commonly found in areas where poverty is high. This list
includes widely recognised diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis as well as lesser-known ailments such as dengue,
chagas disease and foodborne trematode infections. The relationship between poverty and diseases is
emphatically intertwined however we paint with too broad a brush when we generalise that infection rates go down as
poverty declines. This trend is not a given and spikes in infection rates do occur when disastrous events take place such as natural
disasters or the outbreak of conflict. The Chicken and the Egg A common train of thought is that poverty is a driving force behind
poor health and disease. While certainly not disputable, that fact reflects only one side of the argument and does not take into
account the nuanced links between poverty and health. The fact of the matter is that the relationship between poverty
and health is inextricably linked , presenting a chicken-an-egg situation where one seemingly exists, in part, because of
the other. The Global Report for Research on Infectious Diseases of Poverty (put together by the European Commission, the World
Health Organization and TDR) offers a clear rationale of this relationship “Poverty creates conditions that favour the spread of
infectious diseases and prevents affected populations from obtaining adequate access to prevention and care. Ultimately, these
diseases...disproportionately affect people living in poor or marginalised communities. Social,
economic and biological factors interact to drive a vicious cycle of poverty and disease from
which, for many people, there is no escape .“ In short, poverty is instrumental in cultivating conditions that allow
disease to spread. In turn, infectious diseases exacerbate certain factors that contribute to poverty. In
many parts of the world, healthcare is not free nor is it cheap, placing huge financial stress on families who may already live under
the poverty line. Potential job losses and/or time off work due to illness or injury add to monetary burdens and have an adverse
affect on economic development while children who lose their parents to infectious diseases face an increased risk of being
exploited.
Shortage: 1NC
ONE—Can’t solve—market elasticity
Capron, 14 - University Professor and Scott H. Bice Chair in Healthcare Law, Policy, and Ethics, University of Southern
California (Alexander, “SIX DECADES OF ORGAN DONATION AND THE CHALLENGES THAT SHIFTING THE UNITED STATES
TO A MARKET SYSTEM WOULD CREATE AROUND THE WORLD” LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS Vol. 77:25)
In resolving the policy implications of the conflict among ethical values, proponents of organ sales argue that the burden of
persuasion falls on those who urge prohibitions or restrictions because markets would make more organs available and hence save
more lives.150 The first response to such a claim is that a society that fails to develop and utilize all forms of medical interventions
to extend every life does not fail its citizens, whereas one that builds life-saving efforts on practices that are destructive of other
important values—of equality, dignity, and liberty—does.151 The second response—which does not depend upon taking a stance
on what constitutes a good society—is that good reasons exist to doubt proponents’ claims that a market run
according to acceptable ethical standards would, in the long run, produce a larger number of organs than can be achieved without
financial inducements, much less put an end to the shortage in organs.152
(footnote
152)
152. The
notion that the “gap” between supply and demand can ever be closed ignores the
elasticity of demand. The large increase in the United States over the past twenty years in the number of
people waiting for a kidney transplant reflects not only the growing incidence of kidney disease (as
to which preventive efforts would be the preferable response) but also the substantial increase in the number of
kidneys available for transplantation, which makes nephrologists more willing to place patients
on the waiting list. Were kidneys no longer scarce, physicians would list not only those patients
with less severe kidney failure but also those patients whose prospects for a good outcome are
lower because of comorbidities.
TWO—Crowd-out is more likely, comparative evidence
Capron, 14 – this evidence is responding directly to Beard who is cited in the footnotes - University Professor and Scott
H. Bice Chair in Healthcare Law, Policy, and Ethics, University of Southern California (Alexander, “SIX DECADES OF ORGAN
DONATION AND THE CHALLENGES THAT SHIFTING THE UNITED STATES TO A MARKET SYSTEM WOULD CREATE
AROUND THE WORLD” LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS Vol. 77:25)
Free-market economists are quick to pronounce that the organ transplantation policies based on
the noncommercial model followed by most countries over the past three decades “have failed.” 153 This seems a
rather blinkered assessment of a system that has extended and improved millions of lives while also
providing a dramatic affirmation of human generosity and solidarity. There is no question that more organs are needed, but were
all countries to adopt the “best practices” used by the organ-procurement programs with the
highest rates of donation, a huge increase in transplantation would be possible
without resort to paying for organs . Indeed, during the first decade of this century, a concerted effort by the
Department of Health and Human Services led to an increase of more than twenty-five percent in the rate of donation in the United
States.154 Moreover, if only a small fraction of the amount that would need to be spent to purchase
organs in a “regulated market” were instead used to improve the present system, further
substantial increases in the rate of donation would be possible. But what of the claim that it is selfevident that paying for organs would increase the net rate of donation? 155 The extensive literature
on “crowding out” suggests that many people who are willing to donate in a voluntary, unpaid
system would cease doing so once paid donation became an accepted practice.156 It is not simply that one
does not want to be played for a fool (by giving away what others are paid for), but that the nature of the act changes
when it is not experienced by the donor, and seen immediately and universally by others, as something that is
generous and ennobling. This change would be especially pronounced if, as is likely to be the
case, most organ vendors were understood to be acting out of financial desperation. Although today’s
most highly motivated donors—those who are giving a kidney to a close relative—might be expected to be immune to such a
change, this has been found not to be the case. [R]ecently, when the U.S. rules for allocating deceased donor
kidneys were changed to give children on the waiting list greater access to deceased adult
donors’ kidneys, parental donations fell by a larger amount, so that overall fewer pediatric kidney
transplants are being done while some potential adult recipients have been deprived of a kidney that went to a child
instead.157 Likewise, the ready availability of vended kidneys and liver lobes would leave most
potential recipients disinclined to ask a relative or friend to donate. Who would want to ask for such a gift
from a loved one when his or her need for an organ can be met without imposing any burden on that person and without enmeshing
oneself in all the psychological and moral complexities that arise in “the gift relationship”?158 Summarizing observational and
experimental research over many decades by economists and social psychologists, Sheila and David Rothman conclude that
“although the case for the ‘hidden costs of rewards’ is certainly not indisputable, it does suggest that a market in organs might
reduce altruistic donation and overall supply.”159
(Footnote 153)
153. T. RANDOLPH BEARD , DAVID L. KASERMAN & RIGMAR OSTERKAMP, THE GLOBAL ORGAN SHORTAGE:
ECONOMIC CAUSES, HUMAN CONSEQUENCES, POLICY RESPONSES 1 (2013).
THREE—status quo solves
A. Xenotransplantation- new discoveries
Moline, 14 – Truth Atlas editor
[Aaron, "Xenotransplantation Could Solve Organ Crisis," 5-23-14, truthatlas.com/xenotransplantation-could-solve-organ-crisis/,
accessed 8-28-14]
Xenotransplantation Could Solve Organ Crisis
Scientists are trying to resurrect a project, decades in development, that could potentially alleviate the dire shortage of implantable
organs in humans. It’s called xenotransplantation, and it means altering the organs of other animals into
becoming functional in a human body, providing an endlessly renewable source of hearts and other
organs to those critically ill and still waiting for a viable donor. It isn’t exactly a new idea to use animal organs to replace damaged
human ones. After all, we share a common internal design with many different animals, and some are nearly identical to our own.
Recently, the discovery that human and pig skin are very similar has led to the use of animal-based skin grafts that have saved the
lives of burn victims worldwide. However, our powerful immune systems, which are poised to attack any foreign object from any
source, including human donors, remain an obstacle to using internal organs from these same animals for xenotransplantation.
Now, a new project has demonstrated that such an operation is indeed possible by successfully
implanting a pig heart within the body of a baboon. While this may sound like mad science, it is the first step in
developing a method to give these organs to the people who need them most. Of course, this achievement could not have been
accomplished without a substantial effort from scientists at the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.
They first observed the method by which the primate body rejected the new organ. Two different sets of protections exists within our
bodies and those of the baboons to keep foreign organs out. The first is a system of detection, which the scientists fooled by
masking the organ, modifying its genome not to produce the molecule that signals the immune system. The second is the weaponry
with which the immune system attacks these invaders, which had to be shielded against with the genetic introduction of a new
protein that bolsters the organ’s defenses. The next step was to correct the problems that arose over time when an animal lived with
a mismatched heart. They noticed a tendency for blood clots to form in both donated hearts and kidneys, both of which pose serious
risks to the animal. A third genetic modification was needed: the addition of a human anti-clotting substance called thrombomodulin
to keep the organ healthy over time. The
results have been an astounding increase in the efficacy of
xenotransplantation . Hearts that once gave out after 6 months now last 2 years, providing the foundation of the
technology that one day could provide the organs patients desperately need. As the global population ages, the
demand for these organs will only rise as the supply ebbs. When that day arrives, we may need to rely on our porcine friends to give
us a heart.
B. 3D printing- new tech is a quantum leap forward
Gilpin, 14 -- TechRepublic staff writer, citing Dr. Jay Hoying, the Division Chief of Cardiovascular Therapeutics at the
Cardiovascular Innovation Institute at Louisville
[Lyndsey, "New 3D bioprinter to reproduce human organs, change the face of healthcare," Tech Republic, 8-1-14,
www.techrepublic.com/article/new-3d-bioprinter-to-reproduce-human-organs/, accessed 8-28-14]
New 3D bioprinter to reproduce human organs, change the face of healthcare
Researchers are only steps away from bioprinting tissues and organs to solve a myriad of injuries and illnesses.
TechRepublic has the inside story of the new product accelerating the process. If you want to understand how close
the medical community is to a quantum leap forward in 3D bioprinting, then you need to look at the
work that one intern is doing this summer at the University of Louisville. A team of doctors, researchers, technicians, and
students at the Cardiovascular Innovation Institute (CII) on Muhammad Ali Boulevard in Louisville, Kentucky swarm around the
BioAssembly Tool (BAT), a square black machine that's solid on the bottom and encased in glass on three sides on the top. There's
a large stuffed animal bat sitting on the machine and a computer monitor on the side, showing magnified images of the biomaterial
that the machine is printing. This team stands at the forefront of research in 3D bioprinting, as they methodically take steps toward
printing a working human heart. As part of this work, the team is also pioneering breakthroughs in printing
human stem cells -- a move that could remove the raging ethical dilemmas associated with stem
cells and potentially take regenerative medicine to new heights. The combination of these stem cells and 3D bioprinting is
going to help repair or replace damaged human organs and tissues, improve surgeries, and ultimately give patients far better outcomes in dealing with a wide range of illnesses
and injuries. But, there are problems with BAT -- as advanced as it is from its surprising background as a military project. It's way too slow and printing anything with it is a
tortuously manual process. The printhead runs on a three-axis robot that doesn't handle curves very well. No one at the lab knows the limitations and challenges of BAT better
than a summer intern named Katie, an undergrad from Georgetown University. She's in Louisville as part of a summer program for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute that
exposes students to cutting edge research and lets them participate in groundbreaking work. Katie's not sure what she wants to do when she finishes her bachelor's degree in
mathematics but she has thrown herself into her work at the CII with full intensity this summer. A big part of what Katie does is build intricate scripts to tell BAT what to print. It's
similar to a computer programmer writing in assembly language to give a computer system an exact set of instructions. It's an incredibly laborious process and it involves Katie
going back and forth with Dr. Jay Hoying, the Division Chief of Cardiovascular Therapeutics at CII and one of the leaders of the 3D bioprinting project. "What's interesting is
Hoying and his team are
about to get a new 3D bioprinting solution that will accelerate their work so significantly that what has
Katie's background in mathematics," said Hoying, "which is really essential here because it's basically a geometry problem." But
taken Katie half the summer will soon take half a day, according to Hoying. This new solution's hardware, BioAssemblyBot (BAB),
runs as a six-axis robot that is far more precise than BAT. The real difference, however, is in the software: Tissue Structure
Information Modeling (TSIM), which is basically a CAD program for biology. It takes the manual coding out of the process and
replaces it with something that resembles desktop image editing software. It allows the medical researchers to scan and manipulate
3D models of organs and tissues and then use those to make decisions in diagnosing patients. And then, use those same scans to
model tissues (and eventually organs) to print using the BAB. "It's a big step forward in the capability and
technology of bioprinting," said Hoying, "but what someone like me is really excited about is now it enables me to do so much more." Hoying went back to
the example of his highly-capable intern, Katie. "Katie has spent half the summer just understanding and scripting up and doing this," he said. "Now if Katie can do that in half a
day, I can do more biology, I can do more experiments. I can explore new cell combinations.... In that same half a summer I could have explored different structures, different
cell-[to]-cell combinations, experiment here growing them up, etc. Where she's taking half the summer to understand the geometry, script it out, test it... with the BAB and the
TSIM, I would have finished a handful of experiments." Bioprinting's new robot BAB and TSIM are an integrated package built by Advanced Solutions, a private biotech
company located in suburban Louisville. The new solution officially launches today -- Friday, August 1, 2014 -- and Hoying's CII is not the only lab ready to jump on it. In fact,
Hoying is concerned that demand could be so strong that it could interfere with his facility getting one as soon as he would hope, although that seems unlikely considering
Hoying was an important collaborator and consultant for Advanced Solutions in creating the product. While the lab where Katie and Dr. Hoying run their experiments is
downtown next to the hospitals and cutting edge medical facilities, the Advanced Solutions office is about 20 miles east, tucked away in a suburban office park that's also home
to a tree care service, a construction company, a dental association, a US Postal Service branch, and a handful of small healthcare companies. The building that houses
Advanced Solutions sits just down a hill off Nelson Miller Parkway, and less than 1000 feet from the I-265 interstate highway. From the outside, there's little indication that the
single story brick structure houses a team of 65 people who are working on a hardware and software solution that could revolutionize modern medicine. Advanced Solutions has
been around since 1987. During most of the time since then, it has been a software provider building solutions on top of Autodesk for specific industries. But, in October 2010,
Advanced Solutions CEO Michael Golway took an alumni tour of the CII -- since Golway is a University of Louisville alum and the university is a key partner of the facility.
Golway told TechRepublic, "At the end of the presentation, Dr. Stu Williams passionately summarized the CII business model and I was not only impressed by the CII
innovation, team of researchers and focus on cardiovascular solutions but intrigued by the possibilities that Advanced Solutions engineering know-how could contribute in a
positive and profound way to helping his team. I followed back up with Dr. Williams one-on-one and we became fast friends." That began the journey that would lead to the
integrated solution that Golway and his team devised to meet the needs of Williams, Hoying, and researchers and hospitals throughout the world. "Over the course of 2.5 years
we would periodically meet and I learned about some of the technological workflow challenges that slowed his team from advancing the biology research to achieve the Total
Bioficial Heart," Golway said. "Dr. Williams and eventually Dr. Hoying also invested time in learning more about the Advanced Solutions team and our capabilities. After 2.5
years of building a terrific working relationship, listening, learning and collaborating I brought forward an engineering design concept for Dr. Williams and Dr. Hoying to consider
that was intended to solve the tissue design technology problem." Hoying and Williams, who is the division chief of the bioficial heart program at the CII, are both widely
respected cell biologists who came to Louisville from Arizona to work together. They were obviously impressed that Golway's solution could get them closer to their goal of
creating that "Total Bioficial Heart." Golway continued, "In March 2013, Advanced Solutions Life Sciences, LLC was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of Advanced
Solutions, Inc. to engineer, fabricate and commercialize the technology in support of that initial concept design. Today the BioAssemblyBot and [the] TSIM software integrated
this work as part of a larger trend of digitizing
destined to unleash other new advances
solution are the work product from that endeavor." Beyond the launch of his company's product, Golway views
the medical and biological space, which is
as well. "What's been really interesting to me is that we're on a trajectory here where we're really treating biology as more of an
information technology," Golway said. "That's incredibly exciting to us because IT grows exponentially -- instead of just the hardcore
traditional discovery that biology has been tracking on, if we can translate that into IT we can take that experimentation and rapidly
start looking at optimization. How to combine cell types in a way to create cell types and structures. The exponential curve
is already there but this technology allows you to take the next step."
C. Organ cloning- tech exists now
Aronson, 13 -- Organ Transplant Initiative founder
[Bob, "Artificial and Bioengineered Organs Can End the Shortage," 2-10-13, https://bobsnewheart.wordpress.com/category/endingthe-organ-shortage-solutions/, accessed 8-28-14]
In June 2011, an Eritrean man entered an operating theater with a cancer-ridden windpipe, People had received
windpipe transplants before, but this one was different. His was the first organ of its kind to be completely grown
in a lab using the patient’s own cells. The windpipe is one of the latest successes in the ongoing
quest to grow artificial organs in a lab. The goal is deceptively simple: build bespoke organs for individual patients by
sculpting them from living flesh on demand. No-one will have to wait on lengthy transplant lists for donor
organs and no-one will have to take powerful and debilitating drugs to prevent their immune systems
from rejecting new body parts. Scaffolds for Tissue Repair energy pulsar Researchers are making use of advances in knowledge of stem cells, basic
cells that can be transformed into types that are specific to tissues like liver or lung. They are learning more about what they call scaffolds, compounds that act like mortar to
hold cells in their proper place and that also play a major role in how cells are recruited for tissue repair. Tissue engineers caution that the work they are doing is experimental
and costly, and that the creation of complex organs is still a long way off. But they are increasingly optimistic about the possibilities. Bioartificial Liver Boston company HepaLife
is working on a “bioartificial” liver using a proprietary line of liver stem cells. Once the patient’s blood is separated into plasma and blood cells, a external bioreactor unit with
those stem cells inside can reduce levels of toxic ammonia by 75% in less than a day. Bioartificial Hand Smarenergy coming from a handtHand is a bioadaptive hand that can
actually feel. Its 40 sensors communicate back and forth directly with the brain using nerve endings in the arm. The hand sends its sensory input to the brain, and the brain
sends instructions for movement to the hand. The result? It can pick up a plastic water bottle without crushing it, or pour a drink without spills. BioLung MC3 BioLung is a sodacan-shaped implantable device that uses the heart’s pumping power to move blood through its filters. It’s designed to work alongside a natural lung, exchanging oxygen from
the air with carbon dioxide from the bloodstream. So far, it’s been tried on sheep, where six of the eight animals on the BioLung machine survived for five days. Human trials are
expected within the next couple of years. 3D Organ Printing Organ printing, or the process of engineering tissue via 3D printing, possesses revolutionary potential for organ
transplants. The creation process of artificial tissue is a complex and expensive process. In order to build 3D structures such as a kidney or lung, a printer is used to assemble
cells into whichever shape is wanted. For this to happen, the printer creates a sheet of bio-paper which is cell-friendly. Afterwards, it prints out the living cell clusters onto the
paper. After the clusters are placed close to one another, the cells naturally self-organize and morph into more complex tissue structures. The whole process is then repeated to
Using the
patient’s own cells as a catalyst, artificial organs may soon become mainstream practice among
treatment centers worldwide. As the health of the nation delves down to record negatives, organ printing may be the
establishment’s answer to a number of preventable conditions. The above alternatives to human organs are but
the tip of the iceberg. Medical science and technology are on the verge of incredible
breakhroughs that will extend life and, at some point, end the need for human organ donation, anti-rejection
add multiple layers with each layer separated by a thin piece of bio-paper. Eventually, the bio-paper dissolves and all of the layers become one.
drugs and maybe even invasive surgery.
A legalized cadaver market is insufficient to solve the shortage
Beard et al 13 (T. Randolph Beard is a Professor of Economics at Auburn University, Rigmar Oksterkamp is Fellow at the School for Political
Science at University of Munich, the late David L. Kaserman was Torchmark Professor of Economics at Auburn University, “The Global Organ
Shortage” pg 13-14)
Putting aside rare exceptions, organs for transplantation into human beings must be obtained from other human beings. These donors may be
living or dead, depending on which organ is needed. Of course, many organs may be obtained from deceased donors, since the organ is vital for
life. The most important exception is the kidney, of which most people have two, and it is possible to have one kidney removed and live a
normal, healthy life. Impor-tantly, deceased or cadaveric donors must die under a specific set of circum-stances that allow
for the removal and transplantation of their organs. Only a very small fraction of deaths, perhaps 1 percent, qualify. Historically, the pri-
mary sources of deceased-donors organs have been motor vehicle accidents (head traumas), some stroke victims, and
suicides. Generally, it is necessary that such patients suffer brain death in the hospital so that their vital functions may be maintained by
medical intervention until organ removal can be preformed. The donors must be free of cancer, HIV, and similar diseases,
since the organs will be transplanted into sick people who will then undergo power-ful immune system
suppression. Donors also should be of the appropriate age at death, and the organ must be in reasonably good
condition. Donors who die under these stringent conditions are generally termed “standard criteria donors” and are
the most desirable source of deceased-donor organs. Improve-ments in health care, motorcycle helmet laws, and better
vehicle design, however, have had the unintended effects of severely limiting the potential sup-ply of such donors.
Risk Calc
Framing
Our Disads aren’t areason to reject the team- if they are that bad they should be
able to win 0 risk
Vote for the counterplan if we have a net benefit
John Finnis, Professor, Law, NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS, 1980, p. 111-112.
The sixth requirement has obvious connections with the fifth, but introduces a new range of problems for practical reason,
problems which go to the heart of ‘morality’. For this is the requirement that one bring about good in the world (in
one’s own life and the lives of others) by actions that are efficient for their (reasonable) purpose (s).One must not
waste one’s opportunities by using inefficient methods. One’s actions should be judged by their
effectiveness , by their fitness for their purpose, by their utility, their consequences… There is a wide
range of contexts in which it is possible and only reasonable to calculate, measure, compare,
weigh, and assess the consequences of alternative decisions . Where a choice must be made it is reasonable
to prefer human good to the good of animals. Where a choice must be made it is reasonable to prefer basic human goods (such as
life) to merely instrumental goods (such as property). Where damage is inevitable, it is reasonable to prefer
stunning to wounding, wounding to maiming, maiming to death: i.e. lesser rather than greater damage to one-and-thesame basic good in one-and-the-same instantiation. Where one way of participating in a human good includes
both all the good aspects and effects of its alternative, and more, it is reasonable to prefer that way: a
remedy that both relieves pain and heals is to be preferred to the one that merely relieves pain .
Where a person or a society has created a personal or social hierarchy of practical norms and orientations, through reasonable
choice of commitments, one can in many cases reasonably measure the benefits and disadvantages of
alternatives. (Consider a man who ha decided to become a scholar, or a society that has decided to go to war.) Where one ~is
considering objects or activities in which there is reasonably a market, the market provides a common denominator (currency) and
enables a comparison to be made of prices, costs, and profits. Where there are alternative techniques or facilities for achieving
definite, objectives, cost— benefit analysis will make possible a certain range of reasonable comparisons between techniques or
facilities. Over a wide range of preferences and wants, it is reasonable for an individual or society to seek o maximize the
satisfaction of those preferences or wants.
Prob Frontline
*Extinction first—existence before essence
Paul Wapner, Associate Professor and Director, Global Environmental Policy Program, American University, “Leftist Criticism of
‘Nature’: Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age,” DISSENT, Winter 2003,
www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2003/wi03/wapner.htm
All attempts to listen to nature are social constructions-except one. Even the most radical postmodernist must acknowledge
the distinction between physical existence and non-existence. As I have said, postmodernists accept that there
is a physical substratum to the phenomenal world even if they argue about the different meanings
we ascribe to it. This acknowledgment of physical existence is crucial. We can't ascribe meaning to that which
doesn't appear. What doesn't exist can manifest no character. Put differently, yes, the postmodernist should rightly worry about
interpreting nature's expressions. And all of us should be wary of those who claim to speak on nature's behalf (including
environmentalists who do that). But we need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression is existence.
This in turn suggests that preserving the nonhuman world-in all its diverse embodiments-must be seen by eco-critics as a
fundamental good. Eco-critics must be supporters, in some fashion, of environmental preservation. Postmodernists reject the idea
of a universal good. They rightly acknowledge the difficulty of identifying a common value given the multiple contexts of our valueproducing activity. In fact, if there is one thing they vehemently scorn, it is the idea that there can be a value that stands above the
individual contexts of human experience. Such a value would present itself as a metanarrative and, as Jean-François Lyotard has
explained, postmodernism is characterized fundamentally by its "incredulity toward meta-narratives." Nonetheless, I can't see how
postmodern critics can do otherwise than accept the value of preserving the nonhuman world. The nonhuman is the
extreme "other"; it stands in contradistinction to humans as a species. In understanding the constructed quality of
human experience
and the dangers of reification, postmodernism inherently advances an ethic of respecting the "other." At the very least,
respect must involve ensuring that the "other" actually continues to exist. In our day and age, this requires
us to take responsibility for protecting the actuality of the nonhuman. Instead, however, we are running roughshod
over the earth's diversity of plants, animals, and ecosystems. Postmodern critics should find this particularly disturbing. If they
don't, they deny their own intellectual insights and compromise their fundamental moral commitment.
*High magnitude, low probability events first – aggregate probability meets your
framework, math yo, scientific uncertainty
Bostrom 13
[Nick, Philosopher and professor (Oxford), Ph.D. (LSOE), director of The Future of Humanity Institute and the Programme on the
Impacts of Future Technology, of course, he’s also the inaugural recipient of “The Eugene R. Gannon Award for the Continued
Pursuit of Human Advancement,” “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority,” Global Policy, Vol 4, Issue 1,
http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.html]
existential risk is one that threatens the premature extinction of
Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development (Bostrom 2002). Although it
is often difficult to assess the probability of existential risks, there are many reasons to suppose
that the total such risk confronting humanity over the next few centuries is significant . Estimates of 10-20% total
existential risk in this century are fairly typical among those who have examined the issue, though inevitably such estimates rely heavily on
subjective judgment.1 The most reasonable estimate might be substantially higher or lower. But perhaps the strongest reason for
judging the total existential risk within the next few centuries to be significant is the
extreme magnitude of the values at stake. Even a small probability of existential
catastrophe could be highly practically significant
1.
The maxipok rule 1.1. Existential risk and uncertainty An
2.
(Bostrom 2003; Matheny 2007; Posner 2004; Weitzman 2009). Humanity has survived what we might call natural existential
risks for hundreds of thousands of years; thus it is prima facie unlikely that any of them will do us in within the next hundred.2
This conclusion is buttressed when we analyze specific risks from nature, such as asteroid impacts, supervolcanic eruptions, earthquakes, gamma-ray bursts, and
so forth: Empirical impact distributions and scientific models suggest that the likelihood of extinction because of these kinds of risk is extremely small on a time
In contrast, our species is introducing entirely new kinds of existential risk — threats we
have no track record of surviving. Our longevity as a species therefore offers no strong prior grounds for confident optimism.
Consideration of specific existential-risk scenarios bears out the suspicion that the great
bulk of existential risk in the foreseeable future consists of anthropogenic existential risks — that is, those
scale of a century or so.3
arising from human activity. In particular, most of the biggest existential risks seem to be linked to potential future technological breakthroughs that may radically
As our powers expand, so will the scale of their
potential consequences — intended and unintended, positive and negative. For example, there appear to be significant existential risks in some
of the advanced forms of biotechnology, molecular nanotechnology, and machine intelligence that might be developed in the decades ahead. The bulk of
existential risk over the next century may thus reside in rather speculative scenarios to
which we cannot assign precise probabilities through any rigorous statistical or scientific method. But the fact
that the probability of some risk is difficult to quantify does not imply that the risk is
negligible . Probability can be understood in different senses . Most relevant here is the epistemic sense in
expand our ability to manipulate the external world or our own biology.
which probability is construed as (something like) the credence that an ideally reasonable observer should assign to the risk's materializing based on currently
If something cannot presently be known to be objectively safe, it is risky at
least in the subjective sense relevant to decision making. An empty cave is unsafe in just this sense if you cannot tell
available evidence.4
whether or not it is home to a hungry lion. It would be rational for you to avoid the cave if you reasonably judge that the expected harm of entry outweighs the
The uncertainty and error-proneness of our first-order assessments of risk is itself
something we must factor into our all-things-considered probability assignments. This factor
often dominates in low-probability, high-consequence risks — especially those involving poorly
understood natural phenomena, complex social dynamics, or new technology, or that are difficult to
assess for other reasons. Suppose that some scientific analysis A indicates that some catastrophe X has an
extremely small probability P(X) of occurring. Then the probability that A has some hidden crucial
flaw may easily be much greater than P(X).5 Furthermore, the conditional probability of X given
that A is crucially flawed, P(X|¬A), may be fairly high. We may then find that most of the risk of X
resides in the uncertainty of our scientific assessment that P(X) was small (figure 1) (Ord, Hillerbrand and Sandberg
expected benefit.
2010).
Util
Every life is an end in and of itself – All lives are infinitely valuable, the only
ethical option is to maximize the number saved
Cummisky 96 (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, “Kantian Consequentialism”, p. 131)
Finally, even
if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for
killing one—because dignity cannot be added and summed in this way—this point still does not justify
deontological constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger
obligation than saving two persons? If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would
seem that I may still save two; it is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of the one. Consider Hill's example of a priceless object: If I can save
two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim that saving two makes up for the loss of the one. But similarly, the loss of the two is not outweighed by the one that was not
even if dignity cannot be simply summed up, how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should
save as many priceless objects as possible? Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of the one, each is
priceless; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can. In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary
destroyed. Indeed,
killing/letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.8
*Default to cost-benefit analysis—anything else is tautological and irrational
Joshua Greene, Associate Professor, Harvard University, “The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul,” 20 10,
www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Developmental/Greene-KantSoul.pdf
What turn-of-the-millennium science is telling us is that human moral judgment is not a pristine rational enterprise,
that our moral judgments are driven by a hodgepodge of emotional dispositions, which themselves were shaped by a hodgepodge
of evolutionary forces, both biological and cultural. Because of this, it is exceedingly unlikely that there is any
rationally coherent normative moral theory that can accommodate our moral intuitions. Moreover, anyone who
claims to have such a theory, or even part of one, almost certainly doesn't. Instead, what that person probably has is a moral
rationalization. It seems then, that we have somehow crossed the infamous "is"-"ought" divide. How did this happen? Didn't Hume
(Hume, 1978) and Moore (Moore, 1966) warn us against trying to derive an "ought" from and "is?" How did we go from descriptive
scientific theories concerning moral psychology to skepticism about a whole class of normative moral theories? The answer is that
we did not, as Hume and Moore anticipated, attempt to derive an "ought" from and "is." That is, our method has been inductive
rather than deductive. We have inferred on the basis of the available evidence that the phenomenon of rationalist deontological
philosophy is best explained as a rationalization of evolved emotional intuition (Harman, 1977). Missing the Deontological Point I
suspect that rationalist deontologists will remain unmoved by the arguments presented here. Instead, I suspect, they will insist that I
have simply misunderstood whatKant and like-minded deontologists are all about. Deontology, they will say, isn't about this
intuition or that intuition. It's not defined by its normative differences with consequentialism. Rather, deontology is about taking
humanity seriously. Above all else, it's about respect for persons. It's about treating others as fellow rational creatures rather
than as mere objects, about acting for reasons rational beings can share. And so on (Korsgaard, 1996a; Korsgaard, 1996b).This is,
no doubt, how many deontologists see deontology. But this insider's view, as I've suggested, may be misleading. The problem,
more specifically, is that it defines deontology in terms of values that are not distinctively deontological,
though they may appear to be from the inside. Consider the following analogy with religion. When one asks a religious person to
explain the essence of his religion, one often gets an answer like this: "It's about love, really. It's about looking out for other people,
looking beyond oneself. It's about community, being part of something larger than oneself." This sort of answer accurately captures
the phenomenology of many people's religion, but it's nevertheless inadequate for distinguishing religion from other things. This is
because many, if not most, non-religious people aspire to love deeply, look out for other people, avoid self-absorption, have a sense
of a community, and be connected to things larger than themselves. In other words, secular humanists and atheists can assent to
most of what many religious people think religion is all about. From a secular humanist's point of view, in contrast, what's distinctive
about religion is its commitment to the existence of supernatural entities as well as formal religious institutions and doctrines. And
they're right. These things really do distinguish religious from non-religious practices, though they may appear to be secondary to
many people operating from within a religious point of view. In the same way, I believe that most of the standard
deontological/Kantian self-characterizatons fail to distinguish deontology from other approaches to ethics. (See also Kagan (Kagan,
1997, pp. 70-78.) on the difficulty of defining deontology.) It seems to me that consequentialists, as much as anyone else, have
respect for persons, are against treating people as mere objects, wish to act for reasons that rational creatures can share, etc. A
consequentialist respects other persons, and refrains from treating them as mere objects, by
counting every person's well-being in the decision-making process. Likewise, a consequentialist attempts to act
according to reasons that rational creatures can share by acting according to principles that give equal
weight to everyone's interests, i.e. that are impartial. This is not to say that consequentialists and deontologists don't
differ. They do. It's just that the real differences may not be what deontologists often take them to be. What, then, distinguishes
deontology from other kinds of moral thought? A good strategy for answering this question is to start with concrete disagreements
between deontologists and others (such as consequentialists) and then work backward in search of deeper principles. This is what
I've attempted to do with the trolley and footbridge cases, and other instances in which deontologists and consequentialists
disagree. If you ask a deontologically-minded person why it's wrong to push someone in front of speeding trolley in
order to save five others, you will getcharacteristically deontological answers. Some will be tautological: "Because it's
murder!"Others will be more sophisticated: "The ends don't justify the means." "You have to respect people's rights." But, as we
know, these answers don't really explain anything, because if you give the same people (on different occasions) the trolley case or
the loop case (See above), they'll make the opposite judgment, even though their initial explanation concerning the footbridge case
applies equally well to one or both of these cases. Talk about rights, respect for persons, and reasons we can share are natural
attempts to explain, in "cognitive" terms, what we feel when we find ourselves having emotionally driven intuitions that are odds with
the cold calculus of consequentialism. Although these explanations are inevitably incomplete, there seems to be "something deeply
right" about them because they give voice to powerful moral emotions. But, as with many religious people's accounts of what's
essential to religion, they don't really explain what's distinctive about the philosophy in question.
They are morally hazardous
Jeffrey Issac (professor of political science at Indiana University) 2002 Dissent, Spring, ebsco
As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding
concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a
kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws : (1) It fails to see that the purity of one’s
intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common
cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is
hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to
see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it
is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics—as opposed to religion—pacifism is
always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices
with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is
about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant .
Just as the alignment with “good” may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of “good” that generates evil. This
is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one’s goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important,
always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways.
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it
undermines political effectiveness.
2nc
CP
Vote for the counterplan if we have a net benefit
John Finnis, Professor, Law, NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS, 1980, p. 111-112.
The sixth requirement has obvious connections with the fifth, but introduces a new range of problems for practical reason,
problems which go to the heart of ‘morality’. For this is the requirement that one bring about good in the world (in
one’s own life and the lives of others) by actions that are efficient for their (reasonable) purpose (s).One must not
waste one’s opportunities by using inefficient methods. One’s actions should be judged by their
effectiveness , by their fitness for their purpose, by their utility, their consequences… There is a wide
range of contexts in which it is possible and only reasonable to calculate, measure, compare,
weigh, and assess the consequences of alternative decisions . Where a choice must be made it is reasonable
to prefer human good to the good of animals. Where a choice must be made it is reasonable to prefer basic human goods (such as
life) to merely instrumental goods (such as property). Where damage is inevitable, it is reasonable to prefer
stunning to wounding, wounding to maiming, maiming to death: i.e. lesser rather than greater damage
to one-and-the-same basic good in one-and-the-same instantiation. Where one way of participating in a human
good includes both all the good aspects and effects of its alternative, and more, it is reasonable to prefer
that way: a remedy that both relieves pain and heals is to be preferred to the one that merely
relieves pain. Where a person or a society has created a personal or social hierarchy of practical norms and orientations,
through reasonable choice of commitments, one can in many cases reasonably measure the benefits and
disadvantages of alternatives. (Consider a man who ha decided to become a scholar, or a society that has decided to go
to war.) Where one ~is considering objects or activities in which there is reasonably a market, the market provides a common denominator (currency) and enables a comparison to be made of prices, costs, and profits. Where there are alternative techniques or
facilities for achieving definite, objectives, cost— benefit analysis will make possible a certain range of reasonable comparisons
between techniques or facilities. Over a wide range of preferences and wants, it is reasonable for an individual or society to seek o
maximize the satisfaction of those preferences or wants.
A2 PDB
Sale requires ownership- aff establishes a property right for organs that the
counterplan doesn’t
Fuentes, 8 -- US Court of Appeals Third Circuit judge
[Julio, THE BUSINESS EDGE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., No. 07-1059, 3-11-8, l/n,
accessed 9-1-14]
C. Defining
Sale
The District Court concluded that the 1999 Agreement was a contract for the sale of the Number and thus violated 47
C.F.R. § 52.107. We disagree. First, we note that subscribers do not "own" toll free telephone numbers . In the Matter
of Toll Free Service Access Codes, 20 F.C.C.R. 15089, 15090 P 4, 2005 WL 2138620, at *2 (F.C.C. Sept. 2, 2005) ("Telephone numbers are a public
resource and neither
carriers nor subscribers 'own' their telephone numbers ."). Because subscribers do
not own their telephone numbers, they can never "sell" them outright. [**10] Instead, they "sell" the interest that they
have in the number; that is, the right to use it to provide toll free service. In order to determine whether the 1999 Agreement
constituted a sale for the purposes of 47 C.F.R. § 52.107, we review dictionary definitions of "sale" and "sell" to
assess whether the agreement falls within the definitions. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) ("Black's") defines
"sale" as "[t]he transfer of property or title for a price," id. at 1364, and defines "sell" as "[t]o [*155] transfer (property) by sale," id. at 1391. Black's
defines "transfer" as "[a]ny mode of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset." Id. at 1535. Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster's Online
Dictionary defines "sale" as "the act of selling; specifically: the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price" and,
in relevant part, defines "sell" as "to give up (property) to another for something of value (as money)." Id. at http://www.merriam-websters.com (last
visited Feb. 12, 2008). Next, Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ("Webster's") defines "sale," in relevant part, as a "transfer of property
for money or credit," id. at 1693, [**11] and "sell," in relevant part, as "to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money;
dispose of to a purchaser for a price," id. at 1739. Webster's defines "dispose of," in relevant part, as "to transfer or give away, as by gift or sale." Id. at
568. Without
exception, these definitions of "sale" and "sell" emphasize the transfer of property or
ownership for a price
and the finality of the transaction. Here, the fundamental features of the 1999 Agreement were that Business Edge
retained control of the Number, preserving responsibility for paying toll charges, and that Business Edge would only perform routing services for a
period of five years. We, therefore, cannot conclude that the 1999 Agreement was a sale. Therefore, we vacate the District Court's decision that the
1999 Agreement should be invalidated for violating the prohibition on selling toll free telephone numbers in 47 C.F.R. § 52.107.
Tax credits are not sales- the organ is not given a price
Abrahams, 9 -- lawyer and former law professor
[Harlan, former tenured professor at the University of Puget Sound School of Law, "The Organ Markets Come to America," 2009,
Swing Vote, www.swingvotemag.com/Magazine/commentaries/SVC_The_Organ_Markets2009-10-06.php, accessed 8-31-14]
NOTA prohibits the buying and selling of human organs for transplantation purposes. Ironically cadaveric
organs can be bought and sold for research purposes -- but not to save a life. The prohibition has been amended to allow for
"kidney swaps" and other innovative means of bringing willing donors and recipients together, and further amendments have been
proposed. But none allow for the outright purchase and sale of an organ. The Rosen case is instructive. He says he got
$20,000 for his kidney. In cases
like this, the buyer and seller, whether with or without a broker, bargain for the price of the
kidney itself. This
"free market" system must be carefully distinguished from those alternate systems
often called "compensated" donation, where the States would be allowed to offer non-cash benefits or incentives to
organ donors. Under this system, an organ donor or [their]his family may be given life insurance
benefits, health insurance benefits, tax credits, expanded health care, or other incentives
designed to "compensate" them. There is none of the bargaining between buyers and sellers. The
organ itself is not given a price . While most countries continue to outlaw the sale of transplant organs, the move to
granting more incentives to donors is building. Senator Arlen Specter has sponsored the Organ Trafficking
Prohibition Act of 2009. This legislation would tighten NOTA's prohibition against the buying and selling of organs for
transplantation while authorizing the States to experiment with non-cash benefits for donors. The draft legislation states
the "provision of a gratuitous benefit to organ donors is not commercial in nature and does not
constitute a commercial sales transaction."
[Matt note: gender-modified]
Frontline – Solv/NB
Effect is same- tax system=incentive
Milot, 8 -- University of Georgia law professor
[Lisa, Willamette Law Review, "The Case Against Tax Incentives for Organ Transfers," Fall 2008, 45 Willamette L. Rev. 67, l/n,
accessed 8-31-14]
Tax incentives are not seen as less problematic in this regard than direct payments for body parts because the net practical effect
differs; after all, the net effect of both direct payments and tax incentives is to financially encourage organ donations. Tax
incentives simply seem less commercial and for this reason are more acceptable. In comparing tax
expenditures to direct payments, Professors David A. Weisbach and Jacob Nussim explain that, at times, Endowment effects
[may] make
expenditures through the tax system less visible than direct expenditures. People may
perceive a reduction in taxes for engaging in a specified activity differently from an identical
direct grant: They may perceive a tax subsidy as merely letting them keep their money, even while they perceive an identical
program that taxes them and gives the money back through programs or services to be a subsidy. n114 Professors Weisbach and
Nussim focus on the potential good publicity around enacting a government spending program, and conclude that the difference in
visibility "may actually lead to a legislative preference for direct spending over tax programs rather than the other way around." n115
They note that in some cases, however, this "lack of visibility may be a good, rather than a bad, thing." n116 If a
program is desirable but individuals tend to resist it, "putting it into the tax system could reduce
opposition by making it invisible due to framing effects."
mark
n117 It is
this relative invisibility of tax expenditures that makes the approach so attractive to some
legislators and scholars when compared to direct payments for organs. To the extent the
expenditure can be framed in terms of a reimbursement or can be analogized to the existing
deduction for charitable contributions, it avoids the labels of "commodification" and "market,"
even though [*88] the net effect of the incentive is the same to the taxpayer. n118 Thus, use of the
tax system to provide the incentive could prove more effective at obtaining the organs needed for
transplant by allowing donors to feel like what they are doing is donating, not selling. This might be
desirable where the end result (provision of additional organs) is seen as a societal good, but the
means (through compensation) is contested.
Tax credits solve the case and avoid backlash
Kahan, 9 -- J.D. 2010, Magna Cum Laude, Hofstra University School of Law
[Sara, "Incentivizing Organ Donation," Hofstra Law Review, 38 Hofstra L. Rev. 757, Winter 2009, l/n, accessed 8-31-14]
B. Indirect
Financial Incentives
As an alternative to providing direct payments for organ donations, other forms of payment may be
offered as incentives to donate. Although these incentives would not place cash directly into the
hands of the donor or the donor's estate, they would help ease some other financial burdens
associated with organ donation. n264 Indirect incentives distance the economic benefit from the decision
to donate, eliminating many of the concerns opponents have with the sale of organs . n265 1.
Reimbursement for the Medical Care and Funeral Expenses of Cadaveric Donors At the very least, families of cadaveric donors
should receive reimbursement for the medical care and/or funeral expenses of the donor. The following true story exemplifies the
fundamental unfairness of the current transplant system: The mother of Susan Sutton, a twenty-eight year old female who took her
own life, made the decision to donate her daughter's organs. n266 Her heart and liver saved lives, her corneas gave sight, her
bones were used for reconstructive surgery, and her skin provided grafts for burn victims. n267 Not only were the recipients of her
tissue and organs given a prolonged and improved quality of life, but both the doctors and the hospitals performing the transplants,
as well as the organ procurement agency, profited from her donation. n268 Susan, however, was buried in an unmarked grave
because her mother was unable to afford a gravestone and the law prohibited her from donating her daughter's organs in exchange
for a proper burial. n269 In 1994, Pennsylvania sought to remedy this inequity by enacting a Death Benefits Program. n270 The Act
created the Organ Donation Awareness Fund. n271 The fund, supported by $ 1 donations from Pennsylvania residents, reimbursed
a cadaveric donor's estate up to $ 3,000 for "reasonable hospital and other medical expenses, funeral expenses, and incidental
expenses incurred by the donor or donor's [*789] family in connection with making a vital organ donation." n272 In order to ensure
that the transfer of money was not made directly to the donor's estate, payments could "only be made directly to the funeral home,
hospital or other service provider related to the donation." n273 This system silenced many opponents of an incentive-based system
of organ procurement as it prevents individuals and corporations from capitalizing on the sale of organs and preserves the altruistic
nature of organ donation. n274 Unfortunately, in 2002, the Pennsylvania Department of Health held that these benefits came too
close to violating NOTA's prohibition against offering valuable consideration for the purchase or sale of organs, and reduced donor
reimbursement to $ 300. n275 The remainder of the fund now goes toward organ donation awareness programs. n276 Despite
critique that $ 300 creates little incentive to donate, during the first six months of the revised Death Benefits Plan, nineteen donor
families applied for the $ 300 donation benefit. n277 Further, the number of Pennsylvanians carrying an identification card
designating them as an organ donor increased by 0.5%, making an additional 83,344 Pennsylvania citizens potential cadaveric
organ donors. n278 Thus indirect financial incentives, at least in Pennsylvania, have proven to be a successful method of increasing
the potential donor pool. 2. Tax Benefits Tax benefits for organ donors, living or cadaveric, is another reasonable
alternative to direct compensation.
mark
n279 Many states, Wisconsin being the first, have adopted legislation granting tax deductions to living organ donors. n280
Wisconsin allows for a maximum deduction of $ 10,000 from adjusted gross income for costs incurred from donating all or part
[*790] of a liver, kidney, pancreas, intestine, lung, or bone marrow. n281 This deduction may be claimed for all donation related
expenses that are not covered by insurance, such as travel, lodging, and lost wages. n282 Currently, this incentive is only available
to living donors. n283 Under my proposal, tax benefits can easily be made available to cadaveric donors by offering a tax credit to
the donor's estate. n284 Other indirect financial incentives to donate can include a life insurance policy for live donations, a gift to
the donor's charity of choice, n285 or college tuition credits for the survivors of cadaveric donors. n286 Compensation does
not need to be proportional to the estimated monetary value of the donated organ in order to
afford adequate incentive to donate. Those already inclined to donate may be encouraged to
complete a donor card when given a slight external motivator. n287
A2 squo
Knox concludes neg - Tax credits solve and states don’t prove – they can legally
only cover the cost of donating –CP changes that - and only Iowa actually
provides credits not deductions – also people don’t know about tax incentives
now – CP creates a signal that boosts interest – their ev concludes neg
Knox 12, their card– (Richard, “Tax breaks for organ donors aren’t boosting transplant supply,” NPR.com, August 31, 2012,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/08/30/160338259/tax-breaks-for-organ-donors-arent-boosting-transplant-supply)
**GREEN
Seventeen states offer tax incentives to people who donate a kidney, a portion of their liver or bone
marrow for transplantation. But a study finds these sweeteners aren't working.
Researchers looked at what happened in the years before and after these tax incentives were
passed and found no increase in organ donation rates.
It's the latest contribution to a debate about how to increase the supply of organs for transplantation at a time when more than
100,000 people are on waiting lists and donations have been flat for several years.
A recent NPR-Thomson Reuters Health Poll found that 60 percent of Americans support some kind of financial incentive to organ
donors that could be applied to health care needs.
But the new report raises a caution about how much to expect from financial incentives.
"It may be that this particular form of altruistic behavior is unrelated to finances," Dr. Atheendar Venkataramani and his colleagues
write in this month's American Journal of Transplantation. "Individuals who want to donate will commit to that
regardless of cost, especially if they know and care for the recipient."
But there may be other reasons why the tax breaks aren't working , they say. For one thing , they may
just be too small.
Typically states offer a deduction of up to $10,000 from taxable income. For a typical family that translates to less than
$1,000 in reduced taxes. But the financial burden for a living kidney donor can range from $907 to $3,089, according to one study.
The tax incentives are intended to defray the organ donor's cost in medical care, travel and lost
wages. By federal statute, it's illegal to pay someone for the organ itself.
[Their card ends]
Authors of the new study suggest increasing the value of the tax deductions or converting them into a tax credit, which would lower
only Iowa offers donors a tax credit. There's also reason
to think that few people in states with tax credits know about them . Study authors found that even
organ donation advocate groups were unaware. So were people being evaluated as living donors,
including even the most educated and informed prospective donors. Maybe states that have enacted organ
the donor's tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis. So far
donor tax incentives were already progressive enough to have done other things to increase donation. So they have tapped out the
potential. Finally, maybe it just takes longer for changes in tax law to have an effect . The study looked at
donation rates within two years after passage. Whatever the reason, the study authors aren't saying the tax breaks
should be abandoned. "These tax incentives cost the states very little, so there is no real reason to do away with them," says
Venkataramani, a Massachusetts General Hospital resident who led the study. " Instead we should focus on improving
them." The states that offer organ donor tax breaks are Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Shortages
Ext3—Status Quo Solves 2NC
3. Organ cloning solves now
Aronson, 13 -- Organ Transplant Initiative founder
[Bob, "Artificial and Bioengineered Organs Can End the Shortage," 2-10-13, https://bobsnewheart.wordpress.com/category/endingthe-organ-shortage-solutions/, accessed 8-28-14]
In June 2011, an Eritrean man entered an operating theater with a cancer-ridden windpipe, People had received
windpipe transplants before, but this one was different. His was the first organ of its kind to be completely grown
in a lab using the patient’s own cells. The windpipe is one of the latest successes in the ongoing
quest to grow artificial organs in a lab. The goal is deceptively simple: build bespoke organs for individual patients by
sculpting them from living flesh on demand. No-one will have to wait on lengthy transplant lists for donor
organs and no-one will have to take powerful and debilitating drugs to prevent their immune systems
from rejecting new body parts. Scaffolds for Tissue Repair energy pulsar Researchers are making use of advances in knowledge of stem cells, basic
cells that can be transformed into types that are specific to tissues like liver or lung. They are learning more about what they call scaffolds, compounds that act like mortar to
hold cells in their proper place and that also play a major role in how cells are recruited for tissue repair. Tissue engineers caution that the work they are doing is experimental
and costly, and that the creation of complex organs is still a long way off. But they are increasingly optimistic about the possibilities. Bioartificial Liver Boston company HepaLife
is working on a “bioartificial” liver using a proprietary line of liver stem cells. Once the patient’s blood is separated into plasma and blood cells, a external bioreactor unit with
those stem cells inside can reduce levels of toxic ammonia by 75% in less than a day. Bioartificial Hand Smarenergy coming from a handtHand is a bioadaptive hand that can
actually feel. Its 40 sensors communicate back and forth directly with the brain using nerve endings in the arm. The hand sends its sensory input to the brain, and the brain
sends instructions for movement to the hand. The result? It can pick up a plastic water bottle without crushing it, or pour a drink without spills. BioLung MC3 BioLung is a sodacan-shaped implantable device that uses the heart’s pumping power to move blood through its filters. It’s designed to work alongside a natural lung, exchanging oxygen from
the air with carbon dioxide from the bloodstream. So far, it’s been tried on sheep, where six of the eight animals on the BioLung machine survived for five days. Human trials are
expected within the next couple of years. 3D Organ Printing Organ printing, or the process of engineering tissue via 3D printing, possesses revolutionary potential for organ
transplants. The creation process of artificial tissue is a complex and expensive process. In order to build 3D structures such as a kidney or lung, a printer is used to assemble
cells into whichever shape is wanted. For this to happen, the printer creates a sheet of bio-paper which is cell-friendly. Afterwards, it prints out the living cell clusters onto the
paper. After the clusters are placed close to one another, the cells naturally self-organize and morph into more complex tissue structures. The whole process is then repeated to
Using the
patient’s own cells as a catalyst, artificial organs may soon become mainstream practice among
treatment centers worldwide. As the health of the nation delves down to record negatives, organ printing may be the
establishment’s answer to a number of preventable conditions. The above alternatives to human organs are but
the tip of the iceberg. Medical science and technology are on the verge of incredible
breakhroughs that will extend life and, at some point, end the need for human organ donation, anti-rejection
add multiple layers with each layer separated by a thin piece of bio-paper. Eventually, the bio-paper dissolves and all of the layers become one.
drugs and maybe even invasive surgery.
3-D printing solves within 10 years—rapid advances
DAEF 14
An online platform launched by the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology of the European
Commission to facilitate a broad reflection on future European policies, “Advances in bio-artificial and 3D-printed organs”
[http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/futurium/en/content/advances-bio-artificial-and-3d-printed-organs] Accessed September 2, 2014
//
Organs such as kidneys, livers and lungs have always been in high demand by patients with severe illnesses. In
2008, 56 000 people were waiting for a suitable organ within the European Union. The demand exceeds the number of available
organs in Member States and is increasing faster than organ donation rates. Bio-artificial and 3D-printed organs
are critical for overcoming this challenge.¶ Advances in bio-artificial organs¶ Bio-artificial organs are the products of
tissue engineering. Scientists explain that tissue engineering uses the concepts and tools of biotechnology, molecular and cell
biology, material science and engineering to understand the structure-function relationships in mammalian tissues and to
develop biological substitutes for the repair or replacement of tissue or organ functions (Bioartificial Organs as Outcomes of
Tissue Engineering).¶ The generation of bio-artificial organs takes part in 3 steps:¶ Obtaining the patient’s autologous cells with
the help of biopsy procedure, isolating the cells from the tissue biopsy and increasing their number in the cell culture (outside
the human).¶ Transferring the cells onto a carrier structure (matrix) which is usually generated from animal tissue or from
synthetic components. In the lab cells sprout on the matrix, dissolve it and replace it by private proteins. ¶ After reaching a level
of maturation in the laboratory, the bio-artificial tissue is transplanted as replacement tissue into the patient. ¶ Dr Anthony Atala,
director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in North Carolina (US) breaks
tissue engineering into four levels of complexity:¶ Flat structures that are made up of just one type of cells are the simplest to
engineer. Skin is an example.¶ Tubes like blood vessels and urethras which have two types of cells and act as a conduit.¶
Hollow non-tubular organs like the bladder and the stomach. These have more complex structures and functions. ¶ Solid organs
like the kidney, hearth and liver are the most complex to engineer because they have many different cell types and also require
blood supply.¶ German researchers are already mass producing swatches of real human skin. As of
2009, the price per unit was 34 Euros. The skin produced by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft is exactly like the skin on human bodies –
made up of different cell types whereas skin manufactured previously used to be one thin layer made up of only one type of
cell.¶ Between March 2004 and July 2007, the research team at Wake Forest University led by Dr Atala built
artificial urethras for five boys using the patients' own cells. Tests measuring urine flow and tube diameter confirmed that
the engineered tissue remained functional throughout the six-year follow-up period. Scientists say
that bio-artificial urethras can be used successfully in patients and could be an alternative to the current treatment, which has a
high failure rate.¶ Anthony Atala also reported the successful transplantation of laboratory-grown
urinary bladders into beagles in 1999. Less than 10 years later the same procedure was repeated in humans
suffering from end-stage bladder disease - functional bioartificial bladders were successfully implanted into
patients.¶ Growing solid organs in the lab is however is much more complex. Organs like kidneys, lungs or hearts requires
putting a number of different cell types into the right positions and simultaneously growing complete networks of blood vessels
to keep them alive. Although the task is indeed challenging, scientists continue to make advances – Doris Taylor created a
beating rat hearth at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston. At the University of Michigan David Humes created a cell-phone-size
artificial kidney that has passed tests on sheep.¶ Some scientists believe that implanting bio-artificial solid organs into humans is
achievable, other remain more sceptical.¶ Advances in 3D-printed organs¶ The bioprinting trend is being driven by
three factors - more sophisticated printers, refined CAD software and advances in regenerative
medicine. Scientists are becoming increasingly interested in the field – from 2008 to 2011, the number
of scientific papers referencing bioprinting almost tripled.¶ Bio 3D printers function in the same way as
traditional 3D printers – tissue is printed layer by layer. Once a layer of cells is laid down by the printer, a layer of hydrogel that
operates as a scaffold material follows and the process repeats. When the cells fuse, the hydrogel is removed to create material
made entirely of human cells. The material is then moved to a bioreactor where the tissue continues to grow into its final form.¶
3D printing has already been used to create personalised prosthetics, human bones and human tissue. For example,
LayerWise, a Belgian metal parts manufacturer successfully printed a jaw bone in 2012. The artificial jaw was implanted into a
83-year old patient. San Diego-based company Organovo successfully prints small pieces of blood vessel
or liver tissue. Although the mini-livers are half a millimetre deep and 4 millimetres across, they can perform most
functions of the real organ. The ultimate goal of Organovo is to create human-sized structures suitable for
transplantation.¶ Currently, the biggest challenge in 3D bioprinting is producing larger branched
networks of blood vessels to nourish complex organs. Stuart William, executive and scientific
director of the Cardiovascular Innovation Institute (US), suggests that scientists will be able to
print fully functional hearts from a patient’s own cells within 10 years. First steps have already
been made – in the first half of 2013 researchers printed and implanted a portion of a heart and blood
vessels in mice.¶ Given the progress to date, further advances in bioprinting might even enable bionic organs – body parts
that restore and extend human ability. Scientists at Princeton University have conducted experiments aiming to integrate
electronics into bioprinting. Earlier in 2013 they created an ear that receives a wide range of frequencies using a coiled antenna
printed with silver nanoparticles. The artificial ear can pick up frequencies beyond the range of normal human hearing. ¶ Bioartificial and 3D-printed organs can not only alleviate the shortage of donor organs. Artificially created
organs can also be used to test the impact of new drugs, thus eliminating the need to test new drugs on humans. 3D models of
organs could also be used for educational and research purposes.
A2 PERV (Disease)
No disease from Xeno- MMR proves, empirics prove, expert opinion, drugs
solve
Ferrara, 1 -- Medical and science writer / editor
[Adi, "Should xenotransplants from pigs raised at so-called organ farms be prohibited because such organs could transmit pig
viruses to patients—and perhaps into the general population forum," Science Clarified, Vol 2, www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol2/Should-xenotransplants-from-pigs-raised-at-so-called-organ-farms-be-prohibited-because-such-organs-could-transmit-pig-virusesto-patients-and-perhaps-into-the-general-population.html, accessed 8-29-14]
Animals who routinely carry an infectious agent are called hosts for the agent (virus, bacteria, or parasite). Endogenous retroviruses
are viruses whose DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) sequence is integrated into the host's DNA in each cell of the host. We as humans
carry our own endogenous viral sequences in our DNA. Because the viral sequence is integrated into the host's DNA, it is extremely
difficult, and often impossible, to eliminate the virus from the host. There is concern that by transmitting PERV to humans, especially
immunosuppressed individuals, the virus can become "hot" and cause infection. Or perhaps a PERV particle, or even an unknown
virus that has not yet been detected in pigs, might combine with some of the human endogenous viral DNA to form a new, possibly
infectious, virus. The concern is a valid one and should be investigated. This concern also makes a good case for strict follow-up of
xenotrans-plant patients and their families. But the PERV situation is not unique. The current MMR (measles,
mumps, rubella) vaccine, made with chicken cells, contains particles of an endogenous avian (bird)
retrovirus. Because the vaccine is a live one, there is a possibility of combination between the avian virus and the MMR
infectious particles. To date, no infections of any kind have been reported as a result of the MMR vaccine.
The chance of a recombination event between retrovirus particles is far less likely to occur between nonhomologous sequences (sequences that share little similarity to one another) such as pig and human
retroviruses. A study of 160 patients who were exposed to living pig tissues or organs for lengthy
periods showed no evidence of PERV infection, or infection with any other known pig viruses.
Patients in this study, many of whom were immunosup-pressed during their treatment periods, were followed for more than eight
years post-treatment. The study is not a guarantee that such infections have not or will not occur, especially in individuals who
receive heavy doses of immunosuppression drugs. Nonetheless, this study is an encouraging sign. Dr. Robin Weiss, a virologist
specializing in retroviruses, estimated in an interview for Frontline's Organ Farm that the chances of a human
PERV epidemic infection are remote. Other scientists support his view. In addition, Dr. Weiss noted that a
currently available anti-HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) drug has proven very effective against PERV.
In a worst-case scenario, scientists already have at least one drug that can fight PERV infection,
should one occur. Drs. Walter H. Günzburg and Brian Salmons, in a 2000 paper assessing the risk of viral infection in
xenotransplants, pointed out that safety techniques used in gene therapy today can be successfully
adapted to control a "hot" PERV in humans.
EXT-Deceased
-
Cadavers means worse organs and more organ failure
Beard et al 13 (T. Randolph Beard is a Professor of Economics at Auburn University, Rigmar Oksterkamp is Fellow at the School for Political
Science at University of Munich, the late David L. Kaserman was Torchmark Professor of Economics at Auburn University, “The Global Organ
Shortage” pg 14)
Severe shortages of deceased-donor organs that satisfy standard conditions have led doctors to use less
desirable organ sources, including “non-heart-beating” or “Donation after Cardiac Death” (NHBD or DCD) donors and “expanded criteria
donors” (ECDs), for which the requirements are reduced, resulting in medically inferior organs, and somewhat diminished
patient out-comes. The advantage of such organs, and it is a large advantage, is that the potential supply is far greater than in the
standard criteria case. Nonetheless, the understanding and handling of non-brain-dead donors and their organs have
improved in recent years. Consequently, it is conceivable that eventually such donor pools may substantially alter the
shortage situation
Cog bias
Cognitive bias against existential risk – err neg
Nick Bostrom, Professor, Oxford and Director, Future of Humanity Institute, “We’re Underestimating the Risk of Human
Extinction,” Interviewed by Ross Andersen, THE ATLANTIC, 3—6—12,
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/were-underestimating-the-risk-of-human-extinction/253821/
You have argued that we underrate existential risks because of a particular kind of bias called observation
selection effect. Can you explain a bit more about that? Bostrom: The idea of an observation selection effect is maybe
best explained by first considering the simpler concept of a selection effect. Let's say you're trying to estimate how large the
largest fish in a given pond is, and you use a net to catch a hundred fish and the biggest fish you find is three inches long. You
might be tempted to infer that the biggest fish in this pond is not much bigger than three inches, because you've caught a
hundred of them and none of them are bigger than three inches. But if it turns out that your net could only catch fish up to a
certain length, then the measuring instrument that you used would introduce a selection effect: it would only select from a
subset of the domain you were trying to sample. Now that's a kind of standard fact of statistics, and there are methods for
trying to correct for it and you obviously have to take that into account when considering the fish distribution in your pond. An
observation selection effect is a selection effect introduced not by limitations in our measurement instrument, but rather by the
fact that all observations require the existence of an observer. This becomes important, for instance, in evolutionary biology.
For instance, we know that intelligent life evolved on Earth. Naively, one might think that this piece of evidence suggests that
life is likely to evolve on most Earth-like planets. But that would be to overlook an observation selection effect. For no matter
how small the proportion of all Earth-like planets that evolve intelligent life, we will find ourselves on a planet that did. Our data
point-that intelligent life arose on our planet-is predicted equally well by the hypothesis that intelligent life is very improbable
even on Earth-like planets as by the hypothesis that intelligent life is highly probable on Earth-like planets. When it comes
to human extinction and existential risk, there are certain controversial ways that observation selection
effects might be relevant. How so? Bostrom: Well, one principle for how to reason when there are these observation
selection effects is called the self-sampling assumption, which says roughly that you should think of yourself as if you were a
randomly selected observer of some larger reference class of observers. This assumption has a particular
application to thinking about the future through the doomsday argument, which attempts to show
that we have systematically underestimated the probability that the human species will perish
relatively soon. The basic idea involves comparing two different hypotheses about how long the human species will last in
terms of how many total people have existed and will come to exist. You could for instance have two hypothesis: to pick an
easy example imagine that one hypothesis is that a total of 200 billion humans will have ever existed at the end of time, and
the other hypothesis is that 200 trillion humans will have ever existed. Let's say that initially you think that each of these
hypotheses is equally likely, you then have to take into account the self-sampling assumption and your own birth rank, your
position in the sequence of people who have lived and who will ever live. We estimate currently that there have, to date, been
100 billion humans. Taking that into account, you then get a probability shift in favor of the smaller hypothesis, the hypothesis
that only 200 billion humans will ever have existed. That's because you have to reason that if you are a random sample of all
the people who will ever have existed, the chance that you will come up with a birth rank of 100 billion is much larger if there
are only 200 billion in total than if there are 200 trillion in total. If there are going to be 200 billion total human beings, then as
the 100 billionth of those human beings, I am somewhere in the middle, which is not so surprising. But if there are going to be
200 trillion people eventually, then you might think that it's sort of surprising that you're among the earliest 0.05% of the
people who will ever exist. So you can see how reasoning with an observation selection effect can have these surprising and
counterintuitive results. Now I want to emphasize that I'm not at all sure this kind of argument is valid; there are some deep
methodological questions about this argument that haven't been resolved, questions that I have written a lot about. See I had
understood observation selection effects in this context to work somewhat differently. I had thought that it had more to do with
trying to observe the kinds of events that might cause extinction level events, things that by their nature would not be the sort
of things that you could have observed before, because you'd cease to exist after the initial observation. Is there a line of
thinking to that effect? Bostrom: Well, there's another line of thinking that's very similar to what you're describing that speaks
to how much weight we should give to our track record of survival. Human beings have been around for roughly a hundred
thousand years on this planet, so how much should that count in determining whether we're going to be around another
hundred thousand years? Now there are a number of different factors that come into that discussion, the most important
of which is whether there are going to be new kinds of risks that haven't existed to this point in
human history---in particular risks of our own making, new technologies that we might develop this century,
those that might give us the means to create new kinds of weapons or new kinds of accidents. The fact that we've been
around for a hundred thousand years wouldn't give us much confidence with respect to those risks. But, to the extent that one
were focusing on risks from nature, from asteroid attacks or risks from say vacuum decay in space itself, or something like
that, one might ask what we can infer from this long track record of survival. And one might think that any species anywhere
will think of themselves as having survived up to the current time because of this observation selection effect. You don't
observe yourself after you've gone extinct, and so that complicates the analysis for certain kinds of risks.
Util
Every life is an end in and of itself – All lives are infinitely valuable, the only
ethical option is to maximize the number saved
Cummisky 96 (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, “Kantian Consequentialism”, p. 131)
Finally, even
if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for
killing one—because dignity cannot be added and summed in this way—this point still does not justify
deontological constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger
obligation than saving two persons? If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would
seem that I may still save two; it is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of the one. Consider Hill's example of a priceless object: If I can save
two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim that saving two makes up for the loss of the one. But similarly, the loss of the two is not outweighed by the one that was not
even if dignity cannot be simply summed up, how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should
save as many priceless objects as possible? Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of the one, each is
priceless; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can. In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary
destroyed. Indeed,
killing/letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.8
Default to cost-benefit analysis—anything else is tautological and irrational
Joshua Greene, Associate Professor, Harvard University, “The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul,” 20 10,
www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Developmental/Greene-KantSoul.pdf
What turn-of-the-millennium science is telling us is that human moral judgment is not a pristine rational enterprise,
that our moral judgments are driven by a hodgepodge of emotional dispositions, which themselves were shaped by a hodgepodge
of evolutionary forces, both biological and cultural. Because of this, it is exceedingly unlikely that there is any
rationally coherent normative moral theory that can accommodate our moral intuitions. Moreover, anyone who
claims to have such a theory, or even part of one, almost certainly doesn't. Instead, what that person probably has is a moral
rationalization. It seems then, that we have somehow crossed the infamous "is"-"ought" divide. How did this happen? Didn't Hume
(Hume, 1978) and Moore (Moore, 1966) warn us against trying to derive an "ought" from and "is?" How did we go from descriptive
scientific theories concerning moral psychology to skepticism about a whole class of normative moral theories? The answer is that
we did not, as Hume and Moore anticipated, attempt to derive an "ought" from and "is." That is, our method has been inductive
rather than deductive. We have inferred on the basis of the available evidence that the phenomenon of rationalist deontological
philosophy is best explained as a rationalization of evolved emotional intuition (Harman, 1977). Missing the Deontological Point I
suspect that rationalist deontologists will remain unmoved by the arguments presented here. Instead, I suspect, they will insist that I
have simply misunderstood whatKant and like-minded deontologists are all about. Deontology, they will say, isn't about this
intuition or that intuition. It's not defined by its normative differences with consequentialism. Rather, deontology is about taking
humanity seriously. Above all else, it's about respect for persons. It's about treating others as fellow rational creatures rather
than as mere objects, about acting for reasons rational beings can share. And so on (Korsgaard, 1996a; Korsgaard, 1996b).This is,
no doubt, how many deontologists see deontology. But this insider's view, as I've suggested, may be misleading. The problem,
more specifically, is that it defines deontology in terms of values that are not distinctively deontological,
though they may appear to be from the inside. Consider the following analogy with religion. When one asks a religious person to
explain the essence of his religion, one often gets an answer like this: "It's about love, really. It's about looking out for other people,
looking beyond oneself. It's about community, being part of something larger than oneself." This sort of answer accurately captures
the phenomenology of many people's religion, but it's nevertheless inadequate for distinguishing religion from other things. This is
because many, if not most, non-religious people aspire to love deeply, look out for other people, avoid self-absorption, have a sense
of a community, and be connected to things larger than themselves. In other words, secular humanists and atheists can assent to
most of what many religious people think religion is all about. From a secular humanist's point of view, in contrast, what's distinctive
about religion is its commitment to the existence of supernatural entities as well as formal religious institutions and doctrines. And
they're right. These things really do distinguish religious from non-religious practices, though they may appear to be secondary to
many people operating from within a religious point of view. In the same way, I believe that most of the standard
deontological/Kantian self-characterizatons fail to distinguish deontology from other approaches to ethics. (See also Kagan (Kagan,
1997, pp. 70-78.) on the difficulty of defining deontology.) It seems to me that consequentialists, as much as anyone else, have
respect for persons, are against treating people as mere objects, wish to act for reasons that rational creatures can share, etc. A
consequentialist respects other persons, and refrains from treating them as mere objects, by
counting every person's well-being in the decision-making process. Likewise, a consequentialist attempts to act
according to reasons that rational creatures can share by acting according to principles that give equal
weight to everyone's interests, i.e. that are impartial. This is not to say that consequentialists and deontologists don't
differ. They do. It's just that the real differences may not be what deontologists often take them to be. What, then, distinguishes
deontology from other kinds of moral thought? A good strategy for answering this question is to start with concrete disagreements
between deontologists and others (such as consequentialists) and then work backward in search of deeper principles. This is what
I've attempted to do with the trolley and footbridge cases, and other instances in which deontologists and consequentialists
disagree. If you ask a deontologically-minded person why it's wrong to push someone in front of speeding trolley in
order to save five others, you will getcharacteristically deontological answers. Some will be tautological: "Because it's
murder!"Others will be more sophisticated: "The ends don't justify the means." "You have to respect people's rights." But, as we
know, these answers don't really explain anything, because if you give the same people (on different occasions) the trolley case or
the loop case (See above), they'll make the opposite judgment, even though their initial explanation concerning the footbridge case
applies equally well to one or both of these cases. Talk about rights, respect for persons, and reasons we can share are natural
attempts to explain, in "cognitive" terms, what we feel when we find ourselves having emotionally driven intuitions that are odds with
the cold calculus of consequentialism. Although these explanations are inevitably incomplete, there seems to be "something deeply
right" about them because they give voice to powerful moral emotions. But, as with many religious people's accounts of what's
essential to religion, they don't really explain what's distinctive about the philosophy in question.
1nr
Link turns case- backlash dooms entire transplantation enterprise
Richards, 12 -- Oxford philosophy professor
[Janet Radcliffe Richards, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics distinguished research fellow, "Do Current Organ Transplant
Policies Restrict Potential Donors?" Huffington Post, 9-5-12, www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-radcliffe-richards/organ-transplantpolicies_b_1857978.html, accessed 8-18-14]
Many of us wish that the state could requisition the organs of the dead and use them to save the living, instead of allowing them to
be wasted by burial or burning. As yet, however, public opinion is nowhere near allowing any such thing. Rightly
or wrongly, we make much more fuss about the rights of the dead than the benefit of the living. When there are public
scandals about transplantation, these are never about the lives lost that could so easily have been saved,
but about organs said to have been improperly procured.¶ So what can the transplant community do? It is
desperate to get more life-saving organs, but it knows that
the whole project depends on public support . It
must not seem too rapacious in its organ hunt, in case potential donors see their own rights as
under threat, and donations fall even further. Instead, it tries to work by appeals to generosity and altruism. People must be
assured that their organs cannot be used without consent, even though many patients will die in consequence
Trust is high- polls show doctors are one of the most trusted professions
in America- that’s Giroux.
Recent polls confirm doctor-patient trust is high
Xie 12-23-14 (Julie, “Why Nurses Are the Most Trustworthy Profession in the US,”
http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/2014/12/23/why-nurses-are-the-most-trustworthy-professionthe/WyTs4WU2kQZ5RrQRROU3TP/story.html)
Every year Gallup
asks Americans to rate how honest and ethical they perceive common professions
to be. Nurses, doctors, and pharmacists rounded out the top three in 2014 — a year when the Ebola
outbreak affected many in the medical profession. Eighty percent of respondents chose “high” when asked to rate the honesty and
Sixty five percent said “high” when rating medical doctors
and pharmacists. On the other end of the scale, only 8 percent of Americans say car salespeople have high standards, and 7
ethical standards of nurses, over “average” or “low.”
percent think members of Congress do.
Steady support for doctor-patient trust – broad trend
McCanne 10-24-14 (Don, MD, “Public Trust in Physicians — U.S. Medicine in International Perspective,”
http://pnhp.org/blog/2014/10/24/improving-trust-in-the-profession/)
One emerging question is what role the medical profession and its leaders will play in shaping future national health care policies
that affect decision making about patient care. Research suggests that for physicians to play a substantial role in such decision
making, there has to be a relatively high level of public trust in the profession’s views and leadership. But an examination of
U.S. public-opinion data over time and of recent comparative data on public trust in physicians as a group in 29
a note of caution about physicians’ potential role and influence with the
U.S. public. In a project supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, we
reviewed historical polling data on public trust in U.S. physicians and medical leaders from 1966
through 2014, as well as a 29-country survey conducted from March 2011 through April 2013 as part of the International Social
industrialized countries raises
Survey Programme (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration among universities and independent research institutions. In 1966, nearly
three fourths (73%) of Americans said they had great confidence in the leaders of the medical profession. In 2012, only 34%
in physicians’ integrity has remained high . More than two thirds
of the public (69%) rate the honesty and ethical standards of physicians as a group as “very
high” or “high” (Gallup 2013).
expressed this view. But simultaneously, trust
.
Organ sales collapse doctor-patient trust
Caplan, 14 – NYU bioethics division head and professor
[Arthur, Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Columbia, Drs. William F and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor and head
of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, "Reply to Cherry," Contemporary
Debates in Bioethics, google books, 70-71, accessed 8-18-14]
Medicine is a business, but it is also a profession: one that relies on trust. If commercial concerns are
seen as overwhelming the protection of patient interests, then medicine will no longer be able to
function. If doctors do useless tests on patients solely¶ to make money, then patients come to distrust recommendations for
tests. If doctors will remove your kidney, cornea, lobe of liver, or limbs solely so that you and they may turn a
buck, patients soon will come to completely distrust their doctors . Transplantation depends upon
trust-to obtain organs such as hearts¶ and lungs, people must believe their loved ones are truly dead
before removal. Trust in that the surgeon will not give you an inferior or infected organ just to get a
paycheck. Trust in that you cannot bribe your way to access to an organ ahead of those in greater¶ need.
There is nothing that will destroy trust more in transplant than showing that doctors are quite
willing to harm their patients-especially those who are poor or vulnerable solely and only for
money.
Specific link defense is irrelevant- public assumes the worst version of the
aff
Kiser, 8 -- Minnesota Medicine associate editor
[Kim, "The Contrarian," Minnesota Medicine, April 2008, www.minnesotamedicine.com/Past-Issues/Past-Issues-2008/April2008/Face-to-Face-April-2008, accessed 8-17-14]
Recently, more and more groups have been asking Matas to discuss the controversial idea, in which the government would control
the price and distribution of kidneys. A trial would require Congress to revisit the National Organ Transplant Act, which outlaws
organ sales. The law was passed in 1984 in response to a proposal by Virginia physician Barry Jacobs to create a brokerage that
would buy kidneys from people in poor countries, sell them to those needing a transplant, and profit from the deal. (“Exactly the kind
of thing we don’t want to see,” Matas says.) Among the organizations to which Matas has spoken are the American Society of
Transplant Surgeons, the American Transplant Congress, the World Summit on Organ Donation, and the President’s Council on
Bioethics. Earlier this year, his speaking schedule took him to the annual scientific meeting of the Canadian Society of
Transplantation in Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, the National Kidney Foundation’s scientific meeting in Dallas, and the Cato Institute in
Washington, D.C. During those talks, Matas ignites outrage. When speaking before the Cato Institute, members of the panel
compared his idea with black-market organ sales in the Philippines, Pakistan, and India, and even with child pornography. On a
podcast of the talk, Matas’ voice climbs an octave as he tries to set them straight: “We can’t throw these horror stories out and say
this has anything to do with what’s being proposed! I’ve been listening to Manila, to India, to Pakistan, this has got nothing to do with
what we’re proposing! Child pornography has nothing to do with what we’re proposing today! We’re proposing a solution to solve a
terrible problem for patients—patients who are dying on the transplant list!” Matas believes that the ethical issues need to be
balanced—that concern about exploiting the individuals providing kidneys should not override concern for patients in need. He
believes that a regulated system that doesn’t take advantage of people could be established, and he emphasizes that until there is a
trial, there is no way of knowing whether his idea would work. Untangling Arguments The fact that people were mixing
arguments was what drew Matas into the debate in the first place. As he listened to discussions about how to solve the kidney
shortage, he noticed people confusing the issues of paying for organs from deceased individuals, reimbursing living donors for their
expenses, taking organs from prisoners against their will, and compensating destitute people for kidneys that may not be healthy.
“They were putting their arguments into one big basket, and it didn’t make sense,” he says.
Organ sales collapse trust in medicine and physician prestige
Caplan, 7 -- NYU bioethics division head and professor
[Arthur, Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Columbia, Drs. William F and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor and head
of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, "Do No Harm: The Case Against Oran
Sales from Living Persons," Living Donor Transplantation, ed by Henkie Tan, 432-434, google books, accessed 8-27-14]
Medicine has long held that the core ethical norm of the profession is the principle "Do No Harm". Taking organs from living persons
is in direct violation of this moral norm. The only way in which it seems morally defensible to remove an organ from someone is on
the grounds that the donor chooses to undergo the harm solely to help another and that there is sufficient medical benefit to the
recipient. The creation of a market puts medicine and nursing in the position of removing body parts from persons solely to abet
their interest in securing compensation for themselves. Is this a role that the health professions can ethically countenance (26)?
What would engaging in damaging surgery for hire do to public trust in physicians? The goal of medicine is the alleviation of
illness, disability, and suffering, not finding ways to permit persons to make a profit for themselves by interventions that cause them
possible permanent and significant harm. In a market, even a regulated one, doctors still would be using their skills to help people
harm themselves for money-solely for the money. The distrust and loss of prestige that would follow is a high price for
medicine to pay to gamble that a market may secure more organs for those in need (26). Even if it is possible to get past the facts
that there are no data that existing markets in organs have done much to increase the supply, that there is much exploitation
associated with such markets, since choice would be mostly an illusion, and that a market using living sources severely
compromises the ethics of the medical profession, is there any real chance of shifting public policy toward a market? WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN LARGE GROUPS OF AMERICANS DROP OUT OF THE DECEASED-DONOR POOL? Even if it is possible to
get past the facts that there are no data that existing markets in organs have clone much to increase the supply, that there is much
exploitation associated with such markets, since choice would be mostly an illusion, and that a market using living sources severely
compromises the ethics of the medical profession, is there any real chance of shifting public policy toward a market? No solvencyhealth care providers won’t implement What little data exist show that health-care providers are opposed to markets (19). If they are
not willing to support markets out of moral reservations, then markets simply will not be effectively implemented. Even more
important than a patent lack of enthusiasm for markets among those who would be expected to serve them, major religions and
cultural views in the developed world will not countenance a market in living body parts (20-22), Various Popes, for example, have
made quite clear the Catholic Church's aversion to markets in organs. Anglo-American law, ever since the days in which markets in
body parts resulted in graveyards being stripped to supply medical schools with teaching materials, has not recognized any property
interest in the human body and its organs (22). Alienating religions and cultures which do not view the body as property would have
a devastating impact on the supply of organs available. Indeed, some sub-populations in the United States, particularly
AfricanAmericans, are as likely to be turned off by the institution of a market in body parts because of their historical experiences
with slavery and a keen distrust of medicine, as they are to be motivated to become sellers to the rich (23-26). The argument that
increasing the supply of organs through sales will be efficient and cost- effective is not persuasive. It will take real and expensive
resources to try to regulate and police a market in organs. Since markets, even regulated ones, would shift the supply of organs
toward those who can afford to buy them, those who cannot might well withdraw from participation in the deceased-donor organ
system, thereby putting in peril any overall increase in the pool of organs available to transplant. The case for kidney sales is not
persuasive. Existing experience with markets has been dismal. The notion that free choice supports the creation of markets in
human body parts does not square with the reality of what leads people to be likely to want to sell them. The devastating moral
cost to medicine of engaging in organ-brokering is far too great a price to pay for the meager benefit in supply that might be had
by those in need of transplants. The storm of opposi- tion that markets will trigger in many individuals based on religious or cultural
objections may actually produce a decrease rather than an increase in the overall pool of transplantable organs- an outcome that by
itself would make calls for the creation of markets dubious.
Property rights cause a tragedy of the anticommons – destroys biotech
Spinello, Professor @ Boston College, 4
(Richard A., Department of Operations and Strategic Management, Carroll School of Management, Boston College, “Property rights
in genetic information,”
http://www.fims.uwo.ca/people/faculty/frohmann/LIS774/Documents/Spinello%20on%20geneteic%20information.pdf, ava)
It is axiomatic, therefore, that a property right will efficiently protect the interests of patients and donors. But, despite the laudable intentions embodied
in this property rights approach to genetic source material, there are notable disadvantages and externalities. The major problem with the adoption of a
property rights regime for genetic information is economic ineffi- ciency. Fragmented property rights in the genetic data
coming from multiple sources would require a substantial integration effort if that data were needed for a particular research project. The higher
transaction costs imposed by a property regime would almost certainly constitute an obstacle for
biomedical research. A market which recognizes these ‘‘upstream’’ property rights, such as monopolistic patents for genes or proprietary
rights in genetic data, would function by licensing this ‘‘property’’ to downstream researchers and biotech firms which are working to develop treatments
of genetically based diseases and diagnostic tools. Consider
the impediments to that downstream research such as
the negotiations with multiple owners required by this property regime, the payment of licensing fees to these
owners, the likelihood that some of the owners will act opportunistically and hold up the project. All of this
will greatly inhibit research and increase the cost of important end products. Thus, the adverse social and
economic effects of recognizing these rights seems beyond dispute. But what does the law have to say about the property rights of sources? In the
most pertinent legal case of Moore v. Regents of California22 the California Supreme Court rejected Moore’s claim that his property right had been
violated when doctors did not share the commercial gains they had obtained through the use of his surgically excised spleen cells. A key issue in this
case was whether or not Moore owned his human tissue source along with the genetic information coded into his cells, but the court concluded that he
did not have a valid ownership claim. The court’s rationale was that the bestowal of such a property right would hinder scientific research: ‘‘this
exchange of scientific materials, which is still relatively free and efficient, will surely be compromised if each cell sample becomes the potential subject
matter of a lawsuit’’ (Moore v. Regents of California, 1990). The
court was worried that the nascent biotechnology
industry would be irreparably harmed if researchers were forced to ‘‘investigate the consensual
pedigree of each human cell sample used in research’’ (Moore v. Regents of California, 1990). In making its decision the
Moore court at least implicitly rejected the claim that researchers were bound to share the sometimes ample rewards of that research with those who
contribute human tissue (or other samples) like Mr. Moore. The problem, underscored in the Moore decision, is that society has a critical interest in
stimulating biomedical research. And this includes the kind of research that is being conducted by deCODE Genetics. As Harrison23 observes,
progress in biotechnology research will become ‘‘unduly burdened by the existence of too many
intellectual property rights in basic research tools.’’ Property held in common is subject to a ‘‘tragedy of the commons,’’
since individual incentives are often at variance with the collective good. Each individual’s marginal exploitation of some common property (such as a
fertile track of land) ultimately destroys that property. But if
we effectively remove valuable scientific data from the
intellectual commons through the assignment of proprietary rights we get the opposite of a tragedy of the
commons, that is, a tragedy of the anti-commons .24 In this case too few resources are held in common and
researchers are blocked from using source material (such as genes or genetic data) that have become
privatized unless they negotiate with a multiplicity of owners. The rights of usage become so
fragmented that it is virtually impossible to conduct productive research. The end result is an unfortunate
suboptimal underconsumption of human genetic material, and that material is obviously critical for the development of downstream products such as
excessive ownership of information inputs, such
impose high costs and formidable burdens on the flow of critical
scientific information. Biomedical research depends upon the open availability of genetic data resources so long
as privacy is ensured. High transaction costs and perverse anti-commons effects, however, will undermine
that availability if property rights are granted. Also, while ownership might result in some
compensation for those individuals who license their genetic sequences or sell their genetic information, that compensation will
be trivial in most cases, and it will be far offset by the social good of better healthcare that will be realized by
research efforts unencumbered by these transaction costs.
diagnostic tests and gene therapies. There is considerable risk, therefore, that
as genetic data, and other source material will
2nr
Biotech market so high right now- not new- we made the arg in the 1nrPollack 1/18, Riding High, Biotech Firms Remain Wary By ANDREW POLLACKJAN. 18, 2015,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/technology/riding-high-biotech-firms-remain-wary.html?_r=0
Now, though, the
biotech business is experiencing an almost unprecedented boom of its own. Money
is flowing into the industry as never before. Stock prices are high, and drug approvals are up . And
perhaps most important, some of the new drugs represent major advances against diseases like cancer, hepatitis C and cystic
fibrosis. Buoyed by the recent success, some executives and investors are making the bold
assertion that the industry has turned a corner and that improved scientific insights and new
techniques are allowing drug developers to reduce their notoriously high failure rate and to take
on some illnesses for the first time. Others are skeptical, saying that the current boom is a bubble that will burst. That
mix of exuberance and anxiety characterized the J. P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, the industry’s most closely watched investor
event, for which 9,000 executives and investors squeezed into the Westin St. Francis hotel here last week, navigating congested
hallways and overflowing rooms to hear presentations from 400 companies over four days. hoto Robert Hugin, chief of Celgene.
Investor excitement and scientific success fuel what Mr. Hugin calls “an incredibly exciting time
for our industry.” Credit Mike Segar/Reuters “It is an incredibly exciting time for our industry,” Robert J. Hugin, the chief
executive of Celgene, one of the largest biotechnology companies, said in the first presentation at the meeting. He later added,
“This is not hype and smoke and mirrors.”
Biotech so high no- but more growth means bubble bursts- turns the turn
Nixen 2/19, Forget the tech bubble. It’s the biotech bubble you should worry about Max Nisen, http://qz.com/324939/biotechvaluation-bubble/
Big pharma firms and investors have been showering billions on speculative companies that have
never produced a viable drug. For four years running, biotech stocks have risen faster than any other sector of the market in the
United States. Health care set new records last year for both IPOs and M&A spending . The reason is that
with their existing patents expiring and the cost of R&D climbing, many global drug companies are desperate for new ideas. Cheap
debt, a frenzy of publicity for research that hasn’t yet led to any products, and obscenely high pricing for the medicines that make a
difference are all adding fuel to the fire. The risk of this is that valuations could keep spiraling higher—until they come
crashing back down, either because campaigns to lower drug prices succeed, or because too many of the hoped-for new drugs turn
out to be duds. That could set scientists and investors back years, and deny life-saving treatments to suffering patients. The
biotech sector is exploding by almost every measure Private biotech funding still isn’t as big as regular tech (i.e.,
internet and software) in dollar terms. Software companies raised $19 billion of venture capital in 2014; biotech and medicaldevice companies raised $8.6 billion, according to a report from PwC. Similarly, tech IPOs raised more money in 2014
than biotech ones—even when you subtract the year’s record-setting Alibaba IPO. And the amount raised by biotech IPOs
increased only slightly from 2013 to 2014. However, in the number of IPOs, biotech is exploding . There were 102
health-care IPOs in the United States alone in 2014, 71 of which were biotechs—one in four of all US IPOs. That easily
crushes the 2013 record of 55 health-care IPOs (of which 47 were biotech), and is far more than at the height
of the early 2000s genomics bubble, in which many startups went public, soared in value, then
crashed.