Help critique my speech

[nick1985]

I am looking for a little critique of my short speech. I am the "stater" of the group, so my job is to present our side and to offer some insight. Also, feel free to discuss the issue, it would be a nice change of pace from the usual P&N flame fest. 🙂


The issue of whether or not organs should be able to be sold or not is a touchy one, despite this, we believe that there in fact should be a market for organs. (Our group passes out 25 notecards, 6 have X's on them) In front of you, you have a note card. Let?s pretend that all of you are awaiting an organ donation. Will the people who have an X on their note card please raise their hands. Congratulations, you received the organ that you were waiting on. Now, raise your hand if your card is blank. Unfortunately, you were not as lucky, you did not receive the organ that you were waiting on. The percentage that we used here was about the same nationwide, only roughly 23% of people who wait on an organ ever receive one. The fact is simple, if a market for organs were created there would be a rise in the number of organs available for people, and this will surely save lives. And I challenge anyone to say otherwise.

According to Dr. Donald Ardell, ?Even those who oppose a market in this area acknowledge that the shortage would be eliminated if financial incentives were offered for organs.? Also, given the title of this debate, most assume that a market for body parts does not currently exist. This is false, there already IS a free market for donors, except the only person who is not making any money is the donor! Does this make sense? And consider this, the government tries to protect us with so many different ?nanny? laws. Suicide is illegal. If killing ourselves is illegal, then why won?t the government allow us to purchase organs that will save our lives? Isn?t the government indirectly letting us die by banning the sale of organs? If I cant kill myself, I cant smoke under 18, I cant drink under 21, I have to wear a seatbelt, and countless hundreds of other laws are in place to ?protect us?, then why are we not allowed to save ourselves by purchasing organs? Let?s pretend that you have a child who, if they do not receive their organ shortly, will die. If you had the opportunity to purchase the organ to save your child, would you? Now my partner Eric will elaborate on our position (end).

 

[Stunt]

I'll sell a testicle for the right price...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: nick1985
I am looking for a little critique of my short speech. I am the "stater" of the group, so my job is to present our side and to offer some insight. Also, feel free to discuss the issue, it would be a nice change of pace from the usual P&N flame fest. 🙂


The issue of whether or not organs should be able to be sold or not is a touchy one, despite this, we believe that there in fact should be a market for organs. (Our group passes out 25 notecards, 6 have X's on them) In front of you, you have a note card. Let?s pretend that all of you are awaiting an organ donation. Will the people who have an X on their note card please raise their hands. Congratulations, you received the organ that you were waiting on. Now, raise your hand if your card is blank. Unfortunately, you were not as lucky, you did not receive the organ that you were waiting on. The percentage that we used here was about the same nationwide, only roughly 23% of people who wait on an organ ever receive one. The fact is simple, if a market for organs were created there would be a rise in the number of organs available for people, and this will surely save lives. And I challenge anyone to say otherwise.

According to Dr. Donald Ardell, ?Even those who oppose a market in this area acknowledge that the shortage would be eliminated if financial incentives were offered for organs.? Also, given the title of this debate, most assume that a market for body parts does not currently exist. This is false, there already IS a free market for donors, except the only person who is not making any money is the donor! Does this make sense? And consider this, the government tries to protect us with so many different ?nanny? laws. Suicide is illegal. If killing ourselves is illegal, then why won?t the government allow us to purchase organs that will save our lives? Isn?t the government indirectly letting us die by banning the sale of organs? If I cant kill myself, I cant smoke under 18, I cant drink under 21, I have to wear a seatbelt, and countless hundreds of other laws are in place to ?protect us?, then why are we not allowed to save ourselves by purchasing organs? Let?s pretend that you have a child who, if they do not receive their organ shortly, will die. If you had the opportunity to purchase the organ to save your child, would you? Now my partner Eric will elaborate on our position (end).

A few reasons. First and foremost, as you mention in several examples, you do not have absolute control over your body. I doubt the government would have any problem allowing you to buy an organ to save your life. However, the government DOES have a problem with the sale of organs. The reason for this are many (and I really don't feel like elaborating at the moment, though I will later if this topic sticks around). Liability issues, contracts (what if the person dies after they just paid you $100,000 for one of your kidneys and it didn't take? I want a refund!), and so on.

That said, you definitely have some good points and it sounds like an effective way to get your point across. And yes, I'm registered as a full organ donor. I won't need them anymore. 😀

 

[Dissipate]

Outlawing them simply creates a black market. End of speech.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Unfortunately, under the current system, getting organs is indeed somewhat akin to a lottery.

Under a market system, it becomes a simple matter of 'if you have more than X you live, if not you die'.

Your speech is pretty good, though you're overdoing the point about 'the donor doesn't get any money'. The idea of profiteering from your dead relatives organs is probably enough to turn a lot of people off the idea of an organ market.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Unfortunately, under the current system, getting organs is indeed somewhat akin to a lottery.

Under a market system, it becomes a simple matter of 'if you have more than X you live, if not you die'.

Your speech is pretty good, though you're overdoing the point about 'the donor doesn't get any money'. The idea of profiteering from your dead relatives organs is probably enough to turn a lot of people off the idea of an organ market.

true. but the fact is, the doctors and hospitals are rolling in cash from your dead relatives organs. wouldnt you rather have the money than them?

 

[sandorski]

The biggest risk(s) to such a system is that if it wasn't regulated closely enough there would be all kinds of abuse. From people being pressured in giving up their organs, to Third World "harvesting" by less than savory practices.

As for promoting the idea, emphasize the Supply benefit, assure adherence to Ethics, and avoid discussing the details of Regulations.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: nick1985
true. but the fact is, the doctors and hospitals are rolling in cash from your dead relatives organs. wouldnt you rather have the money than them?

Hospitals don't make money off the organs - they make money off the surgery required to remove/implant them. There's no reason you would ever see those revenues unless you opened a human chop shop.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Unfortunately, under the current system, getting organs is indeed somewhat akin to a lottery.

Under a market system, it becomes a simple matter of 'if you have more than X you live, if not you die'.

Your speech is pretty good, though you're overdoing the point about 'the donor doesn't get any money'. The idea of profiteering from your dead relatives organs is probably enough to turn a lot of people off the idea of an organ market.

true. but the fact is, the doctors and hospitals are rolling in cash from your dead relatives organs. wouldnt you rather have the money than them?

Unless you privatize the ENTIRE system, they will still be rolling in money from it.

In fact, unless you start by removing restrictions to medical school entry, they will still be rolling in money. It's called a monopoly😉

I wouldn't rather the money go anywhere, because it's not a 'real' market, it's a coercive one; the organs have no value to the dead person, and infinite value to the sick person, so what's the 'market price'? It's not based on value, it's based on the largest price that leaves no one able to pay that price without an organ (but 'able' not 'willing' is the relevent term, because the value of 'not dying' is generally very high to the dying person).

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: nick1985
true. but the fact is, the doctors and hospitals are rolling in cash from your dead relatives organs. wouldnt you rather have the money than them?

Hospitals don't make money off the organs - they make money off the surgery required to remove/implant them. There's no reason you would ever see those revenues unless you opened a human chop shop.

thats not entirely true.

"The organ procurement organizations recieve about $25,000 fir every kidney they retrieve from a cadaver."
-Dr. Donald Ardell

these organizations are run out of hospitals.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: nick1985
thats not entirely true.

"The organ procurement organizations recieve about $25,000 fir every kidney they retrieve from a cadaver."
-Dr. Donald Ardell

these organizations are run out of hospitals.

That they retrieve from the cadaver. It's the fee for the removal and transportation of the organ. Even if the patient is dead, they have to be kept 'alive' for the organ to be salvageable. Great care must also be taken in removing the organ and handling it, since it's not much good to the transplantee if it's damaged.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: nick1985
thats not entirely true.

"The organ procurement organizations recieve about $25,000 fir every kidney they retrieve from a cadaver."
-Dr. Donald Ardell

these organizations are run out of hospitals.

That they retrieve from the cadaver. It's the fee for the removal and transportation of the organ. Even if the patient is dead, they have to be kept 'alive' for the organ to be salvageable. Great care must also be taken in removing the organ and handling it, since it's not much good to the transplantee if it's damaged.

this is true, but the fact remains, everyone gets cash for your loved ones organs except you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: nick1985
this is true, but the fact remains, everyone gets cash for your loved ones organs except you.

Not arguing with that - just trying to provide some objections that you'll likely run in to and clarify a few things so you'll be sharp. 😉

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: nick1985
this is true, but the fact remains, everyone gets cash for your loved ones organs except you.

Not arguing with that - just trying to provide some objections that you'll likely run in to and clarify a few things so you'll be sharp. 😉

i understand 😉

also, the amount hospitals and their organizations rake in will be greatly reduced if they actually pay where the organ came from 😉

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: nick1985
this is true, but the fact remains, everyone gets cash for your loved ones organs except you.

Not arguing with that - just trying to provide some objections that you'll likely run in to and clarify a few things so you'll be sharp. 😉

i understand 😉

also, the amount hospitals and their organizations rake in will be greatly reduced if they actually pay where the organ came from 😉

let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

Good point.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

good point, but again, more survivors with a market system.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

good point, but again, more survivors with a market system.

almost certainly, but the system becomes directly unfair, instead of statistically inefficient.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

good point, but again, more survivors with a market system.

almost certainly, but the system becomes directly unfair, instead of statistically inefficient.

of course its unfair. our whole economy is unfair. thats just the way it is. im poor, but i want a BMW...😉

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

good point, but again, more survivors with a market system.

almost certainly, but the system becomes directly unfair, instead of statistically inefficient.

No market has ever been "fair." Someone tell God that it was unfair of him to make goods scarce.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: nick1985
of course its unfair. our whole economy is unfair. thats just the way it is. im poor, but i want a BMW...😉

but at the same time, you can quantify the value that a bmw has for you, or at least substitute it with something else (a cheaper car, a bus pass, whatever).

Although both situations suffer from the implicit, but untrue assumption that everyone places the same value on $1, there's a world of difference between that and a market for 'not dying'.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

good point, but again, more survivors with a market system.

almost certainly, but the system becomes directly unfair, instead of statistically inefficient.

No market has ever been "fair." Someone tell God that it was unfair of him to make goods scarce.

that brings us back to the fundamental problem facing econmomics:
men have unlimited wants and limited resources

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
of course its unfair. our whole economy is unfair. thats just the way it is. im poor, but i want a BMW...😉

but at the same time, you can quantify the value that a bmw has for you, or at least substitute it with something else (a cheaper car, a bus pass, whatever).

Although both situations suffer from the implicit, but untrue assumption that everyone places the same value on $1, there's a world of difference between that and a market for 'not dying'.

While that is true to some extent, I don't see a whole heck of a lot of difference between random assignment and having a free market i.e. what is the difference between someone happening to end up wealthy and someone who ends up pulling the right number out of a hat? Saying who was luckier is a philosophical argument that could be debated forever. At least in the free market those who have the organs will get the highest price for them.

In any event, a black market is inevitably created.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: nick1985
let alone the fact that there will be more organs available and more people will live. 😀

sort of. don't forget that you're arguing from efficiency, not from equity.

the current system randomly assigns people to die - a market system directly assigns specific people to die; that's likely going to be the best argument you will have to deal with.

good point, but again, more survivors with a market system.

almost certainly, but the system becomes directly unfair, instead of statistically inefficient.

No market has ever been "fair." Someone tell God that it was unfair of him to make goods scarce.

that brings us back to the fundamental problem facing econmomics:
men have unlimited wants and limited resources

Yep, and yet we have an entire political class who what to ignore the latter. Go figure.