I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution that a just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.
For this round I value justice as implied in the resolution, and the criterion for weighing justice will be reducing world hunger. Privilege this criterion for two reasons:
1. Food insecurity is linked to limiting physical growth in multiple areas of poor children
Cook 08 (Get it? Cook? Ok sorry)
Cook, John T., and Deborah A. Frank. “Food security, poverty, and human development in the United States.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1136.1 (2008): 193-209.
Taken together, the reviewed studies offer solid evidence that food insecurity (or analogous earlier measures) is associated with a range of adverse health, growth, and development outcomes in children aged 0–18 years, although the relationships are complex, with some variability from study to study. Age, ethnicity, and gender, as well as multiple other factors, including program participation, contribute to this variability.
Food insecurity, even at the least severe household levels, has emerged as a highly prevalent risk to the growth, health, cognitive, and behavioral potential of America’s poor and near-poor children. The threshold levels of severityfor adverse effects of food insecurity on health and development in young childrenoccur before the appearance of readily identifiable clinical markers such as underweight.
However, even at the lowest levels of severity,C-SNAP data suggest that,at least for babies,HFI is an established risk factor for impaired health and development. This indication leads to the troubling conclusion that for infants and toddlers food insecurity is an “invisible epidemic” of a widely prevalent and serious condition that is known to exist and to pose serious risks to child health and development and whose [the] remedy is well understood and cost-effective but is being withheld from those at greatest risk.
2. Limited development traps children in cyclical poverty and violence by limiting education
Eric Jensen( Bachelor’s degree in English at San Diego State University with Distinction. He is currently completing his PhD. in Human Development from Fielding Graduate University.) 2009 “Teaching with Poverty in Mind” http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109074/chapters/Understanding-the-nature-of-Poverty.aspx
Chronic socioeconomic deprivation can create environments that undermine the development of self and the capacity for self-determination and self-efficacy. Compared with their more affluent peers, low-SES children form more stress-ridden attachments with parents, teachers, and adult caregivers and have difficulty establishing rewarding friendships with children their own age. They are more likely than well-off children to believe that their parents are uninterested in their activities, to receive less positive reinforcement from teachers and less homework help from babysitters, and to experience more turbulent or unhealthy friendships (Evans & English, 2002). Common issues in low-income families include depression, chemical dependence, and hectic work schedules—all factors that interfere with the healthy attachments that foster children’s self-esteem, sense of mastery of their environment, and optimistic attitudes. Instead, poor children often feel isolated and unloved, feelings that kick off a downward spiral of unhappy life events, including poor academic performance, behavioral problems, dropping out of school, and drug abuse. These events tend to rule out college as an option and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
3. This structural violence is a moral travesty
Gilligan, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, 1996 (James, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes.. P. 191-196)
The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structural violence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear [war], or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.
My first and only contention is that allowing societies to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased will greatly lower the number of people suffering from malnutrition.
A) Malnutrition is a serious concern
842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat, and in developing countries, 14.3 percent of the population is undernourished according to the World Food Programme.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012.
B) Organs provide many necessary nutrients
Mercola, 13: Mercola, Joseph (Graduate of University of Chicago, Board Certified American College Osteopathic General Practitioners July 1985, State of Illinois Licensed Physician and Surgeon). The Health Benefits of Consuming Organ Meats. Mercola.com. December 30, 2013
The consumption of organ meats has fallen out of favor in the West, which may be a mixed blessing. Liver, kidney, heart and otheranimal organs from organically raised, grass-fed animals are some of the most nutrient-rich foods you can eat.
Unfortunately, that’s not how most food animals are raised these days. In today’s world of high calorie/high carbohydrate but low nutrient foods, most people would benefit greatly from adding these superfoods back into their diet.
They knew that eating these organs would support the natural functioning of their bodies. And they were right—the nutritional benefits of organ meats are now being confirmed by modern science.
Organ meat is a nutritional powerhouse, loaded with vitamins, minerals, amino acids and other compounds vital to your health. Liver in particular is packed with nutrients, which is why predatory animals eat it first and why it has been so highly prized throughout history.
Unfortunately, organ meats have been unfairly demonized in the West thanks to some persistent dietary myths, including beliefs that animal fat and cholesterol are bad for your health. Nothing could be farther from the truth!
Dr. Price, who studied this extensively, found that native cultures who maintained traditional diets—whole foods from plants and animals—had excellent teeth and were free of the chronic diseases plaguing society today. They experienced very little cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental illness, or even birth defects.3 But why? What accounts for such drastic health differences?
C) Presuming consent for organ donations can mitigate these problems
According to the world Health Organization, in 2012, an estimated 56 million people died worldwide. There are no shortages of organs, just a shortage of our willingness to take steps to solve a serious problem in our society. We have the materials at our disposal to end world malnutrition and give millions of children hope for a better tomorrow, but we aren’t using them. It’s time to put aside petty traditions and move forward to make our world a better place.