1nc 1ncThe United States should adopt a default assumption of consent for deceased organ donation.Solves the case CP is what their gift of death ev is talking about makes us recognize the false binar while avoiding the propert rights!""llowing compensation for organs necessaril shifts law toward recognition of propert rights in the bodLaurel R. Siegel #$, JD candidate @ Emory University School of Law, Sumer 2000 RE!E"#$"EER$"# %&E L'(S )* )R#'" %R'"S+L'"%'%$)",, -. Emory L.J. ./0, le1is2om3ensation systems would chan4e the nature of altruistic or4an donation. %he theory states that 3eo3le may 5e more willin4 to 3rovideor4ans if they receive com3ensation. n267 Several ty3es of com3ensation systems have 5een 3ro3osed, each attac8in4 the or4an shorta4e in a sli4htly different way, 5ut with the same ultimate 4oal ! to 3rovide remuneration. 2om3ensation systems re%uire development ofcommon law to increase the propert rights of individuals after death. 'dditionally, a com3ensationsystem could only go into effectif ")%' andthe /.60U'#' amendments are re3ealed oramended. n26- ")%', however, allows all other 3artici3ants in the or4an 3rocurement and trans3lantation 3rocess, e1ce3t the donor, to receive com3ensation. 'r4ua5ly, the donor should receive com3ensation as well.9 2om3ensation systems have several advanta4es. *irst, they hel3 to ma8e u3 for the or4ans wasted under the donative system. n26: Second, if a 3erson sells his or4ans, there may 5e less emotion and tension involved than if an altruistic donation was made out of love or 4uilt. n26;9 +rimarily, dissatisfaction with the 3ro3osed com3ensation systems concerns the lac8 of the customary altruism. n260 2ritics fear that the lac8 of altruism would u3set society as well as reduce the or4an su33ly. n266 Sellin4 or4ans would ta8e away from the traditional notion of 3rovidin4 a 4enerous act in the face of tra4edy. n26. 'llowin4 sales of or4ans encroaches into a sacred area where such sales are controversial. %he notion of 3rofitin4 from the sales of 5ody 3arts is re3ulsive to many. 2ritics of com3ensation systems have a serious concern with coercion of the 3oor. n2.0 Destitute 3eo3le, who otherwise mi4ht not chose to donate or4ans, mi4ht feel com3elled to sell their or4ans. n2./ 'nother concern involves the allocation of or4ans. Under a com3ensation system, those who could afford or4ans would have a 4reater chance of receivin4 them. n2.2 *inally, allowin4 sales of or4ans could 3romote family strife due to 3ressure to sell or4ans. n2.79 a. $nter ?ivos @ar8et for )r4ans9 $n an inter vivos or4an mar8et, or4ans would 5e considered an ordinary commodity to 5e sold for a 3rofit. System re4ulators would have to decide where to draw the line ! sellin4 non!essential or4ans such as 8idneys versus sellin4 essential or4ans such as the heart. %he theory for such a system is 5ased on the notion that all 3arties in the or4an donation 3rocess are com3ensated, thus the donor should 5e included as well. n2.-9 2reatin4 a mar8et for or4ans may actually fail to increase the su33ly 5ecause otherwise altruistic donations may 5e curtailed. n2.: $t also ris8s offendin4 many citiAens andta8es advanta4e of the 3oor who may not otherwise choose to donate or sell or4ans.9 5. *utures @ar8et9 ' less controversial version of a com3ensation system is a futures mar8et. ' futures mar8et would allow healthy individuals durin4 life to contract for the sale of their 5ody tissue fordelivery after their death. n2.; Under this re4ime, if the donorBs or4ans are successfully harvested and trans3lanted, the donorBs estate would receive 3ayment. n2.0 Li8e the current donation system, 3eo3le would si4n donor cards, 5ut unli8e the current system, the donor or vendor would receive com3ensation. n2.6 +ro3onents of this system claim it avoids ethical 3ro5lems. *irst, 5y not usin4 live donors, 3ro3onents claim it does not e13loit the 3oor. n2.. Second, the system does not deal with allocation so the rich will not have 4reater access to or4ans than the 3oor. n700 %hird, 3eo3le will 5e sellin4 their own or4ans, so relatives will not have to 3artici3ate. n70/9 %his system re%uires creating and legall enforcing propert rights in the decedent&s bod. %his system is only hy3othetical and has not yet 5een attem3ted in any Curisdiction. $f im3lemented in the currentsystem, it would clearly violate ")%', 5ecause it involves sales of or4ans. $n addition, it mi4ht e13loit the 3oor 5ecause only the 3oor would have incentive to sell their or4ans, unless the 3rice was hi4h enou4h for moderately wealthy individuals to 5e interested. Even thou4h the system does not deal with allocation, the 3oor will naturally 5e discriminated a4ainst 5ecause they may 5e una5le to afford the or4ans if @edicaid or other 4overnment assistance does not cover them.9 c. Death Denefits9 ' death 5enefits system, while not mar8et!5ased, is a third ty3e of com3ensation system. Such a system would merely 3rovide incentives to relatives of the decedent in e1chan4e for donatin4 the decedentBs or4ans. n702 E1am3les of incentives include estate ta1 deductions, funeral e13ense allow!ances, and colle4e education 5enefits. n707 's illustrated a5ove, +ennsylvania is e13erimentin4 with a death 5enefits system in its newly enacted le4islation. n70-9 +ro3onents ar4ue that a death 5enefits system does not conflict with the current altruistic system. n70: +ro3onents also assert that a death 5enefits system does not violate ")%'Bs 3rohi5ition of or4an sales, 5ecause 2on4ress did not intend to include this 8ind of com3ensation. n70; (ith res3ect to the +en!nsylvania law, 3ro3onents claim funeral e13enses could 5e a reasona5le e13ense e1em3ted from the ")%' 3rohi5ition. n700 %hey claim that 5ecause money does not 4o directly to donors or 5eneficiaries,the 3ayment is not technically for or4ans. n706 )33onents claim that a death 5enefits system con!stitutes the sale of or4ansE indirect com3ensation is 4iven in e1chan4e for oneBs or4ans. %his 3ro3osal, set u3 as a 3ilot 3ro4ram administered 5y individual states, is 3romisin4.9 D. Su44estions9 *irst, solutions must 5e found for the 3ro5lems of the current system, in which an outri4ht mar8et is ina33ro3riate, 5ut in which incentive 3ro4rams and 3u5lic health education could serve as successful 5oosts to the or4an su33ly. *or the second sta4e, after technolo4y alters the status and su33ly of or4ans, society can 3lan a solution for the future. )nly at that 3oint could a full!fled4ed mar8et 5e an acce3ta5le, ethical medium to e1chan4e or4ans.9 /. %he 2urrent System9 's illustrated a5ove, 3ro5lems are inherent in the current or4an trans3lantation system. Society must co3e with the 3ro5lems as they e1ist today, usin4 currently availa5le technolo4y and resources. %he 5est way to address the immediate or4an shorta4e is to administer 3ilot 3ro4rams 3rovidin4 incentives for or4an donations, followin4 the lead of +ennsylvania. 2on4ress should 3ro3ose an 'mendment to ")%' that would allow the De3artment of &ealth and &uman Services to oversee 3ilot 3ro4rams. 2om3ensation would rise incrementally, 5e4innin4 with small 3ayments, such as funeral e13enses or hos3ital 5ills. %he 3rohi5ition of sales of or4ans should remain in 3lace for live or4ans 5ecause allowin4 sales of live or4ans Ceo3ardiAes e1istin4 life and 5rin4s into 3lay many ethical issues. %hus, the amendment would only a33ly to or4ans of decedents.9 $n addition to avoidin4 the ethical 3ro5lems inherent in a mar8et for or4ans, allowin4 an incentive system would 3ro5a5ly increase awareness of donation, increase actual donation, and fairly and tactfully com3ensate the donor. %he a33roach is an im3ortant5rid4e to the future when en4ineered or4ans will ma8e com3ensation systems via5le. @ost im3ortantly, more 3atients, who would otherwise die, will 5enefit from receivin4 life!savin4 or4ans. 9 )r4an donation does not have to 5e 3erceived as a 4rim, avoida5le to3icE donatin4 or4ans transforms death into a 3ositive e13erience ! essentially 5estowin4 the 4ift of life. $n addition to the 3ilot 3ro4rams, 4overnmental efforts should focus on 3u5lic health education. $f the 3u5lic is made more aware of the 3li4ht, the decision to donate or4ans would 5e made 3rior to death. %his tactic would avoid difficult, uncomforta5le situations for families and doctors, which often 3revent donation. @any states already have im3lemented or4an donor awareness funds, funded throu4h donations when renewin4 driverBs licenses or filin4 ta1es. n70. Similar 3ro4rams must 5e esta5lished. +u5lic health officials should tal8 to hi4h school students a5out or4an donation. S3ecial tas8 forces could e13lain the or4an trans3lant system to 3eo3le, in the form of television commercials or advertisements in ma4aAines. %he erection of 5ill5oards with or4an donation messa4es would im3lant the seed in 3eo3leBs minds.9 2. %he *uture System9 %he current solution only affects or4ans from decedents. $n the foreseea5le future, technolo4y will create live or4ans from e1istin4 cells and 5iode4rada5le scaffolds. (hen that occurs, the or4an shorta4e will no lon4er 5e a 3ro5lem. Dut in order to have 3otentially unlimited or4ans, cell donation must occur. %his may eventually 5e done individually at 5irth, 5ut 3hased in 5y adults contri5utin4 to a 4eneric 3ool. (ill these donors 5e com3ensated for their 3re!or4an donationF %he donation of cells differs from a functionin4 or4an and 3ro5a5ly lies outside of or4an trans3lantation laws. @ost li8ely, 3rovidin4 com3ensation for this sta4e would 5e allowa5le and 5eneficial. 'n individual donatin4 his cells would face no ris8 to his health 5y donatin4. *ewer ethical issues are involved. %herefore, for the or4an system of the future, allowin4 incentives to donors is a sound idea. %his canonl5ecome a reality if thecommonlaw develo3s, allowin4 apropert right in live tissue and organs . %his will 5e esta5lished in the mar8et3laceas long as common law and statutor law do not prohibit sales.'recks biotech(((imposes transaction costs that interfere with research2harlotte &. )arrison #, *ellow in @edical Ethics, &arvard @edical SchoolE J.D. /.6-, &arvard LawSchoolE @.+.&. 2000, &arvard School of +u5lic &ealth, 'R%$2LEG "either @oore nor the @ar8etG 'lternative @odels for 2om3ensatin4 2ontri5utors of &uman %issue,, 26 'm. J. L. and @ed. 00, le1is%o the 'merican mind, one o5vious solution to the ethical inadeHuacies of the current system is mar8et!5asedG people should 5e deemed the legalowners of their bod parts , and com3ensation should 5e determinedthrou4h aIdirect mar8et 5etween 5uyer and seller with 3rices 5ased on what 3eo3le are willin4 to 3ay and acce3t.I n:/ %his alternative, already im3lemented in occasional individual ne4otiations, n:2 directly addresses some of the ethical 3ro5lems Cust surveyed. $t also entails serious ethical com3lications of its own, includin4 ris8s to the doctor!3atient or researcher!su5Cect relationshi3 and other ne4ative conseHuences for lar4er society. E1amination of four maCor o5Cections to the 3ro3erty!ri4hts a33roach 5e4ins to su44est the3arameters of a more satisfactory alternative.9 9 '. Economic $nefficiency9 $f one acce3ts the @oore courtBs assum3tion that the 3ro4ress of 5iotechnolo4y research is hi4hly 5eneficial to society, it follows that the economic efficiency of such research should5e carefully 3rotected. "ot only the @oore court, 5ut other Curists and commentators have ar4ued that the reco4nition of 3ro3erty ri4htsin every 3otentially useful tissue sam3le would 3resent the biotech nolo4y industrwith an unacceptable choice G either 5ecome miredin costly and time!consumin4 transactions withnumerous individualtissue sources , n:7 or ris8 failing to secure clear titleto the tissue sam3les on which 3atents and 3roducts may 5e 5ased. n:-9 $n an analo4ous conte1t!!involvin4 intan4i5le or intellectual 3ro3erty rather than tan4i5le, 3ersonal 3ro3erty!!&eller and Eisen5er4 have detailed the inefficiencies that can result fromwhat they re4ard as e1cessive 3rotection of individual3ro3erty ri4hts in 5iomedical research. n:: $n 3articular, they have ar4ued that 3ro4ress in 5iotechnolo4y is unduly 5urdened 5y the e1istence of too many intellectual 3ro3erty ri4hts in 5asic research tools. &eller and Eisen5er4Bs analysis of this intellectual 3ro3erty mar8et serves to hi4hli4ht, 5y analo4y, 3ro5lems that are li8ely to 5e e1acer5ated if individual tissue contri5utors are deemed to hold 3ersonal 3ro3erty ri4hts in their 5lood and 5ody 3arts. 9 &eller and Eisen5er4Bs ar4ument ta8es its cue from#arrett &ardinBs classicanalysis of the 3ro5lems that arise when 3eo3le hold 3ro3erty in common. n:; &ardin concluded that 3eo3le tend to overuse such Icommons 3ro3ertyI Je.4., air or waterK in a way that is ultimately tra4ic. (ithout the incentives of 3rivate 3ro3erty or the limits ofother social arran4ements, each 3ersonBs rational 3ursuit of self!interest leads to 4reater and 4reater e13loitation of a common resource until the whole is e1hausted or ruined. %his, in &ardinBs terms, is Ithe tra4edy of the commons.I n:09 'ccordin4 to &eller andEisen5er4, an o33osite 5ut similar tra4edy of the Ianti!commonsI occurs when 3eo3le hold too little in common!!that is, when too many 3eo3le have a 3rivate ri4ht to 3revent others fromusin4 3ro3erty of mutual interest. n:6 $n the 5iotechnolo4y industry, com3anies must stri8e a se3arate 5ar4ain with every 3arty whose intellectual or tan4i5le 3ro3erty mi4ht 5e needed to 3roduce a commercial 3roduct. $t would 5e 5etter, &eller and Eisen5er4 su44est, if fewer such 3ro3erty ri4hts were reco4niAed. )ften the ri4hts!5earin4 3arties are academic researchers, whom&eller and Eisen5er4 characteriAe as inefficient 5ar4ainers with limited com3etence in the field, co4nitive 5iases that lead them to overvalue their assets and different strate4ic o5Cectives fromtheir industrialne4otiatin4 3artners. &eller and Eisen5er4 contend that ne4otiatin4 with such 3arties a5sor5s undue time and resources from industry. n:.9 $n understandin4 the im3lications of this view for human tissue transactions, it is im3ortant to se3arate concerns a5out efficiency fromdifferences in strate4ic or 3olicy 4oals. %he time!consumin4 nature of academicLindustrial ne4otiations is often due, in 3art, to the su5stantive social values e13ressed in 3u5lic technolo4y 3olicy. *or e1am3le, e1istin4 federal 3olicy see8s to ensure that academic inventions made under federal 4rants and licensed e1clusively to industry are actually used in the develo3ment of 3roducts. %he ri4hts are not merely to 5e held defensively Ji.e., to 3revent com3etitors frommar8etin4 a similar 3roductK orallowed to lan4uish for too lon4 in a com3anyBs 3ortfolio if other 3roCects ta8e on 4reater commercial 3riority. n;0 %o im3lement this 3olicy, universities commonly reHuire their e1clusive licensees to a4ree to Idue dili4enceI commitments for the develo3ment andmar8etin4 of 3roducts. %hese commitments can ta8e time to ne4otiate and can conflict with com3aniesB natural 3reference to control 3ro3rietary ri4hts. n;/ %he conflict is rooted in a difference 5etween 3u5lic and 3rivate o5Cectives rather than in mere inefficiency. $n addition, each 3arty has a strate4ic interest in o5tainin4 what it deems to 5e an acce3ta5le financial return. )f course, 5oth 3u5lic and 3rivate 3arties may share a lar4er aim to 3romote the develo3ment of new and 5etter healthcare 3roducts, and it is reasona5le toconsider how the allocation of 3ro3erty ri4hts affects that lon4!term 4oal.9 $ndividual tissue contri5utors may have interests analo4ous to those of 4overnment!funded researchers and licensors. $n addition to financial considerations, these interests may include the3romotion of research on a disease or condition of concern to the contri5utor. $n a mar8et that serves the dual 3ur3oses of medical care and entre3reneurshi3, the e1tent of 3rotection afforded to a tissue contri5utorBs non!economic interests is a 3u5lic 3olicy Huestion that 4oes 5eyond the sco3e of this article. $t should 5e considered in conCunction with, 5ut not su5sumed 5y, concerns a5out financial returns and efficiency. 9 )n 4rounds of economic efficiency alone, however, criticism li8e &eller and Eisen5er4Bs would li8ely 5e warrantedif 3ro3erty ri4hts were e1tended to individual tissue contri5utors . $f individuals sou4ht to ne4otiate the terms under which their 5ody 3arts were made availa5le for research,inefficiencies could result from several factors. @any tissue sam3les would 5e acHuired either in clinical situations, in which research uses might not et have been considered , or in research 3roCects at anearl stage of development , in which the eventual commercial utility of such materials could 5e hard to 3redict. n;2 $tis li8ely that the maCority of such materials would never be used commerciall in such a way as to warrant a si4nificant royalty. n;7 $n these circumstances, transactioncostsfor securin4 the ri4htsto all sam3les fromtheir individual contri5utors could 5e prohibitive. %his would li8ely 5e true whether contri5utors ne4otiated directly with com3anies or with intermediaries such as academic medical centers or 3rivate 3hysician 3ractices.That prevents the spread of virulent environmental pathogens#erard '. Cangelosi *, +rof of Environmental and )ccu3ational &ealth Sciences and 'dCunct +rof ofE3idemiolo4y and of #lo5al &ealth at the University of (ashin4ton, +hD in @icro5iolo4y from U2 Davis, "ancy E. *reita4, +hD, +rof in the De3t of @icro5iolo4y and $mmunolo4y at the University of $llinois 2hica4o School of @edicine, and @erry R. Duc8ley, +h.D. in environmental micro5iolo4y at @ichi4an State University, *rom )utside to $nsideG Environmental @icroor4anisms as &uman +atho4ens,, htt3GLLacademy.asm.or4Linde1.3h3Lenvironmental!micro5iolo4y!ecolo4y!evolutionL::7!from!outside!to!inside!environmental!microor4anisms!as!human!3atho4ens%he 8ey difference 5etween environmental 3atho4ens and otherhuman 3atho4en s istheir a5ility tosurvive and thrive outside the host. %heir wides3read occurrence in the environment ma8es them difficult to monitor and control. $nroads have 5een made to understand the 3ersistence of these or4anisms in the environment, the reservoirs they inha5it, the ways they e1chan4e virulence factors, and their diversity, 5ut a great deal more research is needed . Dy 4rou3in4 to4ether 3hylo4enetically diverse or4anisms under the um5rella of Ienvironmental3atho4ens,I it is ho3ed that the to3ic can 4ainthe critical massneeded for sustained 3ro4ress. 9 2olloHuium 3artici3ants e1amined other research needs for the field, includin4 the dia4nostic and environmental technolo4ies that will 5e necessary for ta8in4 the ne1t ste3s. $t was a4reed that 5ecause of the com3le1 nature of studyin4 or4anisms that can e1ist in the environment and in human hosts, wor8 in this area is 5est carried out in an interdisci3linary fashion with coordinated in3ut from medical, molecular, and environmental micro5iolo4ists, s3ecialists in host res3onses, e3idemiolo4ists, ecolo4ists, environmental en4ineers, and 3u5lic health e13erts. %he develo3ment of im3roved dia4nostic techniHues is criticalforaccurate assessmentof health ris8sand 3otential human or animal3o3ulation im3act associated with environmental 3atho4ens. 9 $f the im3acts of these diseases are to 5e effectivelcontrolled , the techniHues used to monitor and control infections 5y environmental 3atho4ensMincludin4 interventions, e13osure controls, dru4s, andvaccinesM re%uire improvement. %he 3rocesses surroundin4 dru4 and vaccine develo3ment must 5e tailored to the s3ecial 3ro5lem of environmental 3atho4ens, which often stri8e small num5ers of individuals or individuals in less develo3ed areas of the world and, therefore, offer less 3otential for dru4 develo3ment 3rofit than more common diseases. ' challen4e e1ists, therefore, in meetin4 the need for tar4eted, s3ecific interventions, includin4 develo3ment of dru4s and vaccines for infections 5y environmental a4ents, in the face of a lac8 of financial incentive for develo3ment of these tools. 1nca. +nterpretation and violation(((the affirmative should defend the desirabilit of topical government action ,ost predictable-the agent and verb indicate a debate about hpothetical government actionJon @ .ricson /, Dean Emeritus of the 2olle4e of Li5eral 'rts N 2alifornia +olytechnic U., et al., %he De5aterOs #uide, %hird Edition, 3. -%he +ro3osition of +olicyG Ur4in4 *uture 'ction $n 3olicy 3ro3ositions, each to3ic containscertain 8ey elements, althou4h they have sli4htly different functions from com3ara5le elements of value!oriented 3ro3ositions. /. 'n a4ent doin4 the actin4!!! %he U nited S tates, in %he U nited S tates should ado3t a 3olicy of free trade., Li8e the o5Cect of evaluation in a 3ro3osition of value, the agent is the sub0ectof the sentence. 2. %he ver5 shouldMthe first 3art of a ver5 3hrase that ur4es action. 7. 'n action ver5 to follow should in the should!ver5 com5ination. *or e1am3le, should ado3there means to 3ut a3ro4ram or 3olicy into action through governmental means. -. ' s3ecification ofdirectionsor a limitationof the action desired. %he 3hrase free trade, for e1am3le, 4ives direction and limits to the to3ic, which would, for e1am3le, eliminate consideration of increasin4 tariffs, discussin4 di3lomatic reco4nition, or discussin4 interstate commerce. +ro3ositions of 3olicy deal with future action. "othin4 has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. (hat you a4ree to do, then, when you acce3t the affirmative side in such a de5ate is to offer sufficient and com3ellin4 reasons for an audience to 3erform the future action that you 3ro3ose. 1egalize means to make lawful b 0udicial or legislative sanction2usiness !ictionar 3o !ate, Ile4aliAeI, www.5usinessdictionary.comLdefinitionLle4aliAe.htmlle4aliAe9 Definition9 %o ma8eenforcea5le, Custifia5le, orlawful 5y Cudicial or le4islative sanction.The term organ 4sale5 is narrower than 4valuable consideration5Susan & !enise 6*, JD from the University of ?ir4inia Law School, ")%EG RE#UL'%$"# %&E S'LE )* &U@'" )R#'"S,, SE+%E@DER, /.6:, 0/ ?a. L. Rev. /0/:, le1is%he @aryland and ?ir4inia 3rohi5itions areworded more narrowlthan the federal statute7 which 3rohi5itsthe transfer of or4ans Ifor valua5le consideration.In/2. @aryland sti3ulatesthat I a 3erson may not sell, 5uy, or act as a 5ro8er for 3rofit in the transferI of a human or4an . n/70 $n ?ir4inia, it is Iunlawful for any 3erson to sell, to offer to sell, to 5uy, to offer to 5uy, or to 3rocurethrou4h 3urchaseI a human or4an. n/7/ Dy usin4 the terms I5uyI and I sell ,I thesetwo statutes ma not prohibit a barter or e8change transaction. %hus, the 5readth of transactions these le4islatures intended to 3rohi5it is unclear." general sub0ect isn9t enough-debate re%uires a specific point of difference in order to promote effective e8change Steinberg and :reele 1/, = David, Lecturer in 2ommunication studies and rhetoric. 'dvisor to @iami Ur5an De5ate Lea4ue. Director of De5ate at U @iami, *ormer +resident of 2ED'. 'nd == 'ustin, attorney who focuses on criminal, 3ersonal inCury and civil ri4hts law, JD, Suffol8 University, Argumentation and Debate7 Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, /2/!- De5ate is a means of settling differences , so there must 5e a controversy, a difference of o3inion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate . $f everyone is in a4reementon a feet or value or 3olicy, there is no need or opportunitfor de5ateE the matter can 5e settled 5y unanimous consent. %hus, for e1am3le, it would 5e3ointless to attem3t to de5ate IResolvedG %hat two 3lus two eHuals four,, 5ecause there is sim3ly no controversy a5out this statement. Controvers is an essential prere%uisite of debate . (here there is no clash of ideas, 3ro3osals, interests, or e13ressed 3ositions of issues, there is no de5ate. 2ontroversy invites decisive choice 5etween com3etin4 3ositions.De5ate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a %uestion or Huestions to 5e answered. *or e1am3le, 4eneral ar4ument may occur a5out the broad topicof ille4al immi4ration. &ow many ille4al immi4rants live in the United StatesF (hat is the im3act of ille4al immi4ration and immi4rants on our economyF (hat is their im3act on our communitiesF Do they commit crimesF Do they ta8e Co5s from 'merican wor8ersF Do they 3ay ta1esF Do they reHuire social servicesF $s it a 3ro5lem that some do not s3ea8 En4lishF $s it the res3onsi5ility of em3loyers to discoura4e ille4al immi4ration 5y not hirin4 undocumented wor8ersF Should they have the o33ortunity to 4ain citiAenshi3F Does ille4al immi4ration 3ose a security threat to our countryF Do ille4al immi4rants do wor8 that 'merican wor8ers are unwillin4 to doF 're their ri4hts as wor8ers and as human 5ein4s at ris8 due to their statusF 're they a5used 5y em3loyers, law enforcement, housin4, and 5usinessesF &ow are their families im3acted 5y their statusF (hat is the moral and 3hiloso3hical o5li4ation of a nation state to maintain its 5ordersF Should we 5uild a wall on the @e1ican 5order, esta5lish a national identification card, or enforce e1istin4 laws a4ainst em3loyersF Should we invite immi4rants to 5ecome U.S. citiAensF Surely you can thin8 of many more concerns to 5e addressed 5y a conversation a5out thetopic area of ille4al immi4ration. +artici3ation in this de5ate, is li8ely to 5e emotionaland intense. &owever, it is not li8ely to 5e 3roductiveor useful withoutfocus on a particular %uestion and identification of a line demarcating sidesin the controversy. %o 5ediscussed and resolved effectivel , controversies are 5estunderstood when seated clearlysuch that all 3artiesto the de5ate share an understanding about the ob0ec tiveof the debate . %his ena5lesfocus on su5stantive and o5Cectively identifia5le issuesfacilitatin4 com3arison of competing argumentation leading to effective decisions. ?a4ue understandin4 results in unfocused deliberationand poor deci sions, 4eneral feelin4s of tension without o33ortunity for resolution, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced 5y the failure of the U.S. 2on4ress toma8e su5stantial 3ro4ress on the immi4ration de5ate. )f course , ar4uments may 5e 3resented without disa4reement. *or e1am3le, claims are 3resented and su33orted within s3eeches, editorials, and advertisements even without o33osin4 or refutational res3onse. 'r4umentation occurs in a ran4e of settin4sfrom informal to formal,and may not call u3on an audi ence or Cud4e to ma8e a forced choiceamon4 com3etin4 claims. $nformal dis course occurs as conversation or 3anel discussion without demand in4 a decision a5out a dichotomous or yesLnoHuestion. &owever, b definition , de5ate reHuiresIreasoned 0udgment on a proposition. %he 3ro3osition is a statement a5out which com3etin4 advocates will offer alternative J3ro or conK ar4umenta tion callin4 u3on their audience or adCudicator to decide. %he 3ro3osition 3ro videsfocus for the discourse andguides the decisionprocess. Even when a decision will 5e made throu4h a 3rocess of com3romise, it is im3ortant to iden tify the 5e4innin4 3ositions of com3etin4 advocates to 5e4innegotiation and movement toward a center, or consensus 3osition. $t is frustratin4 and usually un3roductive to attem3t to ma8e a decision when deciders are unclear asto what the decision is a5out. %he 3ro3osition may 5e im3licit in some a33lied de5ates J?ote for meP,KE however, when a vote or conseHuential decision is called for Jas in the courtroom or in a33lied 3arliamentary de5ateK it is essential that the 3ro3osition 5e e8plicitl e8pressed Jthe defendant is 4uiltyP,K. $n academic de5ate, the 3ro3osition 3rovidesessential guidance fortheprep arationof the de5aters 3rior to the de5ate, the case 5uildin4 and discourse 3resented durin4 the de5ate, and the decision to be made b the de5ate 0udge after the de5ate. Someone distur5ed 5y the 3ro5lem of a 4rowin4 underclass of 3oorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths mi4ht o5serve, +u5lic schools are doin4 a terri 5le Co5P %heyB are overcrowded, and many teachers are 3oorly Hualified intheir su5Cect areas. Even the 5est teachers can do little more than stru44le to maintain order in their classrooms.I %hat same concerned citizen , facin4a com3le1ran4e of issues, mi4ht arrive at an unhel3ful decision,such as I 'e ought to do some thingabout this5 or, worse, $tOs too com3licated a 3ro5lem to deal with.I #rou3s of concerned citiAens worried a5out the state of 3u5lic education could Coin to4ether to e8press their frustrations, an4er, disillusionment, and emotions re4ardin4 the schools, 5ut without a focus fortheir discussions, they couldeasilagree a5out the sorry state of educationwithout finding points of clarit or potential solutions . " gripe session would follow . Dut if a precise%uestion is 3osed Msuch as (hat can 5e done to im3rove 3u5lic educationF,Mthena more profitablearea of discussion is openedup sim3ly 5y placing a focuson the searchfor a concrete solution ste3. )ne or more Cud4ments can 5e 3hrased in the form of de5ate 3ro3ositions, motions for 3arliamentary de5ate, or 5ills for le4islative assem5lies, %he statements IResolvedG %hat the federal 4overnment should im3lement a 3ro4ram of charter schools in at!ris8 communities, and ResolvedE %hat the state of *lorida should ado3t a school voucher 3ro4ramI more clearly identify s3ecific ways of dealin4 with educational 3ro5lems in a manageable form , suita5le for de5ate. %hey 3rovide s3ecific 3olicies to 5e investi4ated andaid discussants in identifing points of difference. %his focus contri5utes to5etter and moreinformed decision ma8in4with the potential for better results. $n academic de5ate, it 3rovides better depth of argumentation and enhanced o33ortu!nity for rea3in4 the educational 5enefits of 3artici3ation. $n the ne1t section, we will consider the challen4e of framin4 the 3ro3osition for de5ate, and its role in the de5ate. %ohave a 3roductive de5ate, which facilitate s effective decision making5y directing and placing limits on the decisionto be made7the 5asis for ar4ument should 5e clearl defined. $f we merely tal8 a5out a to3ic,such as QIhomeless ness,, or a5ortion,, )r crime,, or 4lo5al warmin4,,we are li8ely to have an interestin4 discussion 5ut notto esta5lisha 3rofita5le5asis forar4ument . *or e1am3le, the statement ResolvedG %hat the 3en is mi4htier than the sword, is debatable, et 5y itself fails to provide much basis for dear argumen (tation. $f we ta8e this statement to mean $liad the written word is more effective than 3hysical force for some 3ur3oses, we can identify a 3ro5lem areaG the com3arative effectiveness of writin4 or 3hysical force for a s3ecific 3ur3ose, 3erha3s 3romotin4 3ositive social chan4e. J"ote that loose, 3ro3ositions, such as the e1am3le a5ove, may 5e defined 5y their advocates in such a way as to facilitate a clear contrast of com3etin4 sidesE throu4h definitions and de5ate they 5ecome, clearly understood statements even thou4h they may not 5e4in as such. %here are formats for de5ate that often 5e4in with this sort of 3ro3osition. &owever, in any de5ate, at some 3oint, effective and meanin4ful discussion relies on identification of a clearly stated or understood 3ro3osition.K Dac8 to the e1am3le of the written word versus 3hysical force. 'lthou4h we now havea 4eneral su5Cect, we have not yet stated a 3ro5lem. +t is still too broad, too loosely worded to 3romote well!or4aniAed ar4ument. (hat sort of writin4 are we concerned withM3oems, novels, 4overnment documents, we5site develo3ment, advertisin4, cy5er!warfare, disinformation, or whatF (hat does it mean to 5e mi4htierI in this conte1tF (hat 8ind of 3hysical force is 5ein4 com3aredMfists, duelin4 swords, 5aAoo8as, nuclear wea3ons, or whatF ' more s3ecific Huestion mi4ht 5e, (ould a mutual defense treaty or a visit 5y our fleet 5e more effective in assurin4 Laurania of our su33ort in a certain crisisF, %he 5asis for ar4ument could 5e 3hrased in a de5ate 3ro3osition such as ResolvedG %hat the United States should enter into a mutual defense treaty with Laurania., "e4ative advocates mi4ht o33ose this 3ro3osition 5y ar4uin4 that fleet maneuvers would 5e a 5etter solution. %his is not to say that de5ates shouldcom3letely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy 5y advocates, or that 4ood de5atescannot occur over com3etin4 inter3retationsof the controversyE in fact, these sorts of de5ates may 5e very en4a4in4.%he 3oint is that de5ate is 5est facilitated 5y theguidance provided bfocus on a particular point of difference, which will 5e outlined in the followin4 discussion.b. ;ote neg 1. Preparation and clash-changing the topic post facto manipulates balance of prep7 which structurall favors the aff because the speak last and permute alternatives-strategic fairness is ke to engaging a well(prepared opponentTopical fairness re%uirements are ke to meaningful dialogue-monopolizing strateg and prep makes the discussion one(sided and subverts an meaningful neg roleRyan , 2ommittee on $ncreasin4 Rates of )r4an Donation, edited 5y James *. 2hildress, John 'llen &ollin4sworth +rofessor of Ethics and +rofessor of @edical Education at the University of ?ir4inia, Director of the $nstitute for +ractical Ethics ` +u5lic Life at the University of ?ir4inia, +hD from Tale, and2atharyn %. Liverman, )r4an DonationG )33ortunities for 'ction, 3 /0!//, %he committee was as8ed to e1amine the use of financial and nonfinancial incentives to increase the su33ly of or4ans from deceased donors. ' financial incentive isthe 3rovision of somethin4 of material value to motivate consentfor or4an removal. *or e1am3le, a direct pamentcould 5e made in e8change for the organ , with the 3rice for the or4an determined 5y the free mar8et or set 5y re4ulatory authorities. $n either case, the e8change of mone for organswould constitute a 3urchase and sale. "lternativel, financial incentives mi4ht 5e used toinduce donations , Cust as the 3ros3ect of a ta1 deduction is used to induce charita5le contri5utions. Such incentives might be a cash pament usa5le for any 3ur3oseE a cash 3ayment earmarked for a specific purpose, such as funeral e13enses or a charita5le contri5utionE or a material good or service , such as 5ereavement counselin4 or health insurance. %he financialincentive could 4o to the donor 5efore death or to the donorOs estate after death in e1chan4e for the donorOs a4reement to allow his or her or4ans to 5e recovered after death. $n situations in which the donorOs family ma8es the decision to donate, the incentive could 4o to the family. 3onfinancial incentives to donate could ta8e the form of community reco4nition or preferential access to donated organs.Severs 4legalize5(((the CP leaves e8isting bans in place@ar8 S. 3adel *, J.D., 'ttorney at the *ederal 2ommunications 2ommission, and 2aroline '. "adel, @.D., consultant on medical informatics, Usin4 Reci3rocity %o @otivate )r4an Donations,, Tale J &ealth+olicy Law Ethics. 200: (interE :J/KG2.7!72:, htt3sGLLwww.lifesharers.or4LarticlesLnadel.3df' third concern may 5ethat a 3reference mi4ht 5e considered valua5le consideration , for an or4andonation, whichar4ua5ly would violate the current law,/70 5ut that seems ver unlikel for two reasons. *irst, as a technical matter, there would 5e noactuale1chan4e of or4an for value . %he deceased 3arties who actuall donatedtheir organswould not receivean compensation and those who 5enefited from the 3reference would not have donated their or4ans./7/ Second, 3rosecutors and le4al counsel for U")Salread seem to recognize that the 5an on com3ensation for or4an donorsdoes not appl to the current U")S polic of rewardin4 live 8idney donors Jor 3aired 3artnersK with a 3reference,/72 and5othshould re4ard this 3olicy the same way./77 Still, to avoid any confusion, laws that now 5an com3ensation for or4ans should 5e amended to add this form of reci3rocityLinsurance to the list already e1em3ted from such 5ans./7-"TI CP !oesn9t SolvePresumed Consent engages the %uestion of the relation between life and death no less than does the "ff notion of 1egalization both offer up the gift of death.The "ff9s statement that ou ought to affirm the gift of death supersedes the differences between Presumed Consent and 1egalization7 which proves ou should vote 3eg on the strength ofthe 3et 2enefit even if the convince ou that the 3et 2enefit alone operates on a lower register than the mster of death.Scheper()ughes votes neg @blue highlightingA proves we9re not second level simulationScheper)ughes #k J"ancy Sche3er&u4hes is +rofessor of 'nthro3olo4y at the University of 2alifornia, Der8eley, %he #lo5al %raffic in &uman )r4ans,, Current Anthropology, ?ol. -/, "o. 2, '3ril 2000, D)$G /0./06;L700/27Death is, of course, another 8ey word in trans3lantation . %he 3ossi5ility of e1tendin4 life throu4h trans3lantation was facilitated 5y medical definitions of irreversi5le coma Jat the end of the /.:0sKand 5rain stem death Jat the end of the /.;0sK, when death became an epiphenomenon of transplantation . &ere one sees the awesome 3ower of the life sciences and medical technolo4y over modern states. $n the age of transplant surger7life and death are replaced with surrogates7 pro8ies7 andfacsimiles , and ordinary 3eo3le have relinHuished the 3ower to determine the moment ofdeath, which now reHuires technicaland le4ale13ertise5eyond their a5ility Jsee '4am5en /..6G/;:K.0 'dditionally, the new 5iotechnolo4ies have thrown conventional (estern thin8in4 a5out ownershi3 of the dead 5ody in relation to the state into dou5t. $s the Enli4htenment notion of the 5ody as the uniHue 3ro3erty of the individual still via5lein li4ht of the many com3etin4 claims on human tissues and 4enetic material 5y the state and 5y commercial 3harmaceutical and 5iotechnolo4y research com3anies Jsee Ra5inow /..;, 2urran /../, "eves /..7KF 2an it e1ist in the 3resence of the claims of modern states, includin4 S3ain, Del4ium, and, now, DraAil to com3lete authority over the dis3osal of5odies, or4ans , and tissues at deathF (hat 8ind of state assumes ri4hts to the 5odies of 5oth those 3resumed to 5e dead and those 3resumed to have 4ivenconsent to or4an harvestin4 Jsee Shiva /..0, Derlin4er and #arrafa /..;KF Since the 3assa4e of the new com3ulsory donation law in DraAil, one hears an4ry references to the dead 3erson as the stateBs 5ody., 2ertainly, 5oth the family and the church have lost control over it. (hile most doctors have wor8ed throu4h their own dou5ts a5out the new criteria for 5rain death, a 4reat many ordinary 3eo3le still resist it. Drain stem death is not an intuitive or commonsense 3erce3tionE it is far from o5vious to family mem5ers, nursin4 staff, and even some medical s3ecialists. The language of brain death is replete with indeterminac and contradiction . Does 5rain death antici3ate somatic deathF Should we call it , as '4am5en does,the death that precedes death , J/..6G/;7KF (hatis the relation 5etween the time of technically declared 5rain death and the deadline for harvestin4 usa5le or4ansF $n a /..; interview, a forensic 3atholo4ist attached to the #roote Schuur &os3ital in 2a3e %own, where 2hristiaan Darnard e13erimented with the first heart trans3lants, vehemently reCected the medical conce3t of 5rain deathG %here are only two or4anic statesG livin4 and dead. Dead, is when the heart sto3s 5eatin4 and or4ans decom3ose.Drain dead, is not dead. $t is still alive . Doctors 8now 5etter, and they should s3ea8 the truth to family mem5ers and to themselves. %hey could, for e1am3le, a33roach family mem5ers sayin4, Tour loved one is 5eyond any ho3e of recovery. (ould you allow us to turn off the machines that are 8ee3in4 him or her in a liminal state somewhere 5etween life and death so that we can harvest the or4ans to save another 3ersonBs lifeF, %hen it would 5e ethical. %hen it would 5e an honesttransaction. Dr. 2icero #alli 2oim5ra of the De3artment of "eurolo4y and "eurosur4ery at the *ederal University of Sgo +aulo, where he also directs the La5oratorio de "eurolo4ia E13erimental, has written several scientific 3a3ers Huestionin4 the validity of the criteria esta5lished in /.;6 5y the 'd &oc 2ommittee of the &arvard @edical School to E1amine the Definition of Drain Death. Durin4 interviews with me in /..6, 2oim5ra reiterated his claims, 5ac8ed 5y his own research and his clinical wor8, that 5rainstem death, as currently defined, is a33lied to a num5er of 3atients whose lives could 5e saved. @oreover, he claims that a3nea testin4,as widely used to determine 5rain stem death actuall induces irreversible brain damage . 'll the socalled confirmatory tests, he said, reflect nothin4 more than the detrimental effects of doctorinduced intercranial circulatory arrest., 2oim5ra, who refusedanonymity, is a maCor critic of DraAilBs new com3ulsory donation law, which he sees as an assault on his clinical 3o3ulation of 5raintraumatiAed 3atients. %he 5ody may 5e defined as 5rain dead for one 3ur3oseMor4an retrievalMwhile still 3erceived as alive for other 3ur3osesincludin4 family ties, affections, reli4ious 5eliefs, or notions of individual di4nity.6 Even when somatic death is o5vious to family mem5ers and loved ones, the 3erce3tual shift from the dead 5odyMthe recently de3arted,, the 5eloved deceased,, our dearly de3arted 5rother,Mto the anonymous and de3ersonaliAed cadaver Jas usa5le o5Cect and reservoir of s3are 3artsK may ta8e more than the 3ressured technical time, allowed to harvest or4ans usa5le for trans3lantation. Dut as the retrieval time is e1tended with new conservation methods, the confusion and dou5t of family mem5ers may increase. The 4gift of life5 demands a parallel gift-the 4gift of death75 the 4ivin4 overof life 5efore its normally reco4niAed time. $n the lan4ua4e of anthro3olo4y, 5rain stem death is social, not 5iolo4ical, death, and ever 4gift5 demands a return J@auss /.;;K. %o 2oim5ra and some of his collea4ues, 5rain stem death has created a 3o3ulation of livin4 dead 3eo3le. $t has yet to 5e em5raced as common sense even in a 4reat many industrialiAed societies, includin4 Ja3an, DraAil, and the United States Jsee Uolata /..:K, let alone in countries where trans3lant sur4ery is still rare. 'nd yet the 3u5lic unrest in DraAil followin4 3assa4e of the countryBs new 3resumedconsent, law in /..0 is an e1ce3tion to the 4eneral rule of 3u5lic a3athy toward the stateBs assum3tion of control over the dead 5ody.%rans3lant sur4eons often e13lain 3o3ular resistance in terms of a cultural time la4 that 3revents ordinary3eo3le from acce3tin4 the chan4es 5rou4ht a5out 5y new medical technolo4ies. (hile the 3ostmodern state has certainly e13anded its control over death Jsee '4am5en /..6G//.N2:K throu4h recent advances in 5iotechnolo4y, 4enetics, and 5iomedicine,there are many antecedents to consider. %he 2omaroffs J/..2K, for e1am3le, showed the e1tent to which Dritish colonial re4imes in 'frica relied on medical 3ractices to disci3lineand civiliAe newlycoloniAed 3eo3les. %he 'frican colonies 5ecame la5oratories for e13eriments with medical sciences and 3u5lic health 3ractices. 'nd the medical e13eriments under"ational Socialism 3roduced, throu4h a33lied eu4enics anddeath sentencin4, a concentration cam3 3o3ulation of wal8in4 cadavers, livin4 dead3eo3le J'4am5en /..6G/7;K whose lives could 5e ta8en without e13lanation orCustification .'4am5en dares to com3are these slave 5odies to the livin4 dead, candidates for or4an donation held hosta4e to the machine in todayBs intensive care units."TI !" +mpact 2ad !eath