Organ Donation
OPPOSITION “ORGAN DONATION SHOULD BE COMPULSOY” PRESENTATION SPEAKER 1. Good morning / Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. We come from the San Jose School in San Javier. This is our team, she/he is ___, she/he is ___, she/he is ___, and I am ___. We are dabating the resolution "Organ donation should be compulsory". We, on the opposition team. We strongly oppose this resolution. We believe that organ donation don't have to be compulsory. We have 2 strong reasons that support the idea that a mandatory organ donation is not really a good idea. Our first argument is based on a bio-ethic principle and the second one has to be with teh process of transplanting itself. SPEAKER 2
We strongly believe that having a compulsory organ donation law could become something wrong, because it violates the human rights of the person, such as freedom or the right to decide. To some specialists, like Nelson Hill's the decision to donate organs in a compulsory way is something aberrant, since to be mandatory organ transplantation would suggest that the governments have rights of property over the human body and its component parts, this would lead to the same state, country or whichever to be able to do whatever they want to with human bodies, without respect our will. For example, when a person is in a vegetative state, the state could make the decision to get organs such as kidneys, liver, heart, Without caring about if the prospect donor wants to donate or not. Society certainly cannot own the human body. Therefore, in no case it would be possible to talk about mandatory organ donation because they are the same human beings who must make that decision. And the decision to donate or not an organ of the body should be taken freely.
SPEAKER 3.
Another important point against compulsory organ donation has relation to the therapeutic effect of the process. not guaranteed that one hundred percent of the transplants to be successful and be the definitive solution to
We strongly believe that having a compulsory organ donation law could become something wrong, because it violates the human rights of the person, such as freedom or the right to decide. To some specialists, like Nelson Hill's the decision to donate organs in a compulsory way is something aberrant, since to be mandatory organ transplantation would suggest that the governments have rights of property over the human body and its component parts, this would lead to the same state, country or whichever to be able to do whatever they want to with human bodies, without respect our will. For example, when a person is in a vegetative state, the state could make the decision to get organs such as kidneys, liver, heart, Without caring about if the prospect donor wants to donate or not. Society certainly cannot own the human body. Therefore, in no case it would be possible to talk about mandatory organ donation because they are the same human beings who must make that decision. And the decision to donate or not an organ of the body should be taken freely.
SPEAKER 3.
Another important point against compulsory organ donation has relation to the therapeutic effect of the process. not guaranteed that one hundred percent of the transplants to be successful and be the definitive solution to