I negate the resolution.

Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from
the deceased.

I value justice, defined as giving each their due. Prefer this value because just societies must take just
actions, done by referencing laws.

Thus, the value criterion is upholding laws.

Accept this criterion for 2 reasons.

First, laws, serve as guides for action in society. If person A commits wrong action A, laws allow us to
punish them in a standard manner. Furthermore, laws allow governments to fairly resolve disputes
between parties. Without laws, or if laws arent adhered to, society would be in chaos and wouldnt
function.

Second, people only have obligations to follow laws. A citizen has no choice but to follow laws, and if
they dont they will be punished. People cannot adhere to absolute moral principles because they dont
exist. Every individual has a different conception of what is moral and there is no way to bridge all of our
perceptions to come to a unified moral calculation.

Prefer this criterion because the actor in the resolution is the society, and above all, society must adhere
to laws, otherwise they wouldnt function.

Contention 1: Presumed Consent violates contract law, or agreements between two parties. The
University of New Mexico Judicial Education Center explains contract law:

"Elements of a Contract." Judicial Education Center. The University of New Mexico, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

When a party files a suit claiming a breach of contract, the first question the judge must answer is whether a contract existed between the parties. The
complaining party must prove [There are] four elements to show that a contract existed: 1. Offer - One of the
parties made a promise to do or refrain from doing some specified action in the future. 2.
Consideration - Something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or
nonaction. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do
something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract. The existence of consideration
distinguishes a contract from a gift. A gift is a voluntary and gratuitous transfer of property from one person to another, without something of value
promised in return. Failure to follow through on a promise to make a gift is not enforceable as a breach of contract because there is no consideration
for the promise. 3. Acceptance - The offer was accepted unambiguously. Acceptance may be expressed through
words, deeds or performance as called for in the contract. Generally, the acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer. If not, the acceptance is
viewed as a rejection and counteroffer.If the contract involves a sale of goods (i.e. items that are movable) between merchants, then the acceptance
does not have to mirror the terms of the offer for a valid contract to exist, unless: (a) the terms of the acceptance significantly alter the original
contract; or (b) the offeror objects
within a reasonable time. 4. Mutuality - The contracting parties had a meeting of the minds regarding
the agreement. This means the parties understood and agreed to the basic substance and terms of the contract. When the complaining party
provides proof that all of these elements occurred, that party meets its burden of making a prima facie case that a contract existed. For a defending
party to challenge the existence of the
contract, that party must provide evidence undermining one or more elements.

A contract must explicitly have an affirmative response in the acceptance, otherwise it is invalid. And
saying nothing is not the same as saying yes. For example, if I offer to buy your car for $1000, you must
accept that offer in writing or verbally. If you dont respond, I cant just take your car. Presumed consent
violates this and thus is violating a law.

Kenneth Gundle states:

Gundle, Kenneth. "Presumed consent: an international comparison and possibilities for change in the United States."
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14.01 (2005): 113-118.

There has been much debate on the influence of policy on organ donation rates. While the United States operates under a system of expressed
volunteerism, with `consent received from donors and their families, other countries such as Spain, Belgium, and Austria use an opt-out policy
frequently referred to as presumed consent. Although the exact implementation varies, the general concept [of presumed
consent] is that individuals opposed to donating their organs may list their objection on a
national registry, rendering them ineligible to donate. People who do not register are
considered eligible to be donors unless their family specifically objects.

The organ donation registry is a list of people who have agreed to donate their organs to others. They've
signed a contract. A system of presumed consent would add people to this list without them actually
accepting the offer. Theyre not affirmatively saying yes, they want to donate organs. They are giving a
negative yes, which doesnt fulfill the contract burden of acceptance.

Second, violating contracts sets a precedent for the future and will cause huge economic harms. At the
point where we allow governments to violate contracts, we make it impossible for the government to
buy or sell things because terms cannot be agreed upon. We further disallow the government from
hiring workers to produce it's own goods because it needn't have its workers acceptance of employment
contracts. Without being able to agree upon terms of a transaction the government cannot have
economic functions--no military purchases or production. This literally means countries will shut down,
not providing services to citizens or protecting them. Thus, I negate.