# MODERATOR

Good morning ladies and gentlements. Today we will have a debate between team
A as the affirmative team and team B as the opposite team. I am Desak Vania will
be the moderator for this session and Mr Chandralika will be the time keeper to
checking and report the duration of each speech.
Okay, let me introduce both of the team

The first Team is the affirmative team from Nursing department of polytechnic of
health Denpasar with :
Ms. Sharmilla Pramesty as the first speaker.
Mr. Pasek Angga as the second speaker, and
Ms. Lurah Shanti as the third speaker.
The reply speech will be delivered by Ms. Ratih Artasari

The Negative Team is from Nursing department of polytechnic of health

Denpasar with :
Ms. Gek Fitrina as the first speaker.
Ms. Diah Novianti as the second speaker, and
Ms. Indri Mahesti as the third speaker.
The reply speech will be delivered by Ms. Gung Sri Kusuma
The Role for this debate session :
During the debate, please silence your mobile phone or any device that may
produce disturbing sounds.
During the course of each speech, the audience is not allowed to come or get out
or to talk.
For Substantive Speeches, the time keeper will knock once at the minute of four
to remind the speaker that the time is one minute left, and will knock twice at the
minute of five to show that time is up, and twenty seconds after that, the time
keeper will knock continuously, and the speaker must stop the speech.
For Reply Speeches, the time keeper will knock once at the minute of two to
remind the speaker that the time is one minute left, and will knock twice at the
minute of three to show that time is up, and twenty seconds after that, the time
keeper will knock continuously, and the speaker must stop the speech.
The time keeper will announce each speakers duration of speech after the
speaker has finished the speech.
Okay ladies and gentlement , Id like to show you about todays motion. Today we
have This House Would Legalize the Sale of Organs. as todays motion. So,
ladies and gentlemen lets start our debate. So each team has finished up their
building and now they are ready to debate. So Ill call the first speaker from the
affirmative team to deliver the opinions.

For the first speaker of the affirmative team, time is yours !

# MODERATOR
Well thanks for the first speaker of the affirmative team. Next Ill call the
first speaker of the opposite team to deliver the opinion. Time is yours !
# MODERATOR
Well thats the first arguments from the opposite team. What do you think
about the motion ? To the second of affirmative team , time is yours !
# MODERATOR
Well thanks for the second speaker of the affirmative team , next Ill call
the second speaker from opposite team to give the rebuttal for the second
arguments of affirmative team. Time is yours !
# MODERATOR
Thanks for the second speaker of the opposite team , thats a good opinion.
Okay ladies and gentlemen, next Ill call the third speaker of affirmative team to
deliver the conclution. Time is yours !
# MODERATOR
Well thats the conclution of the affirmative team. Next Ill call the third
speaker of the opposite team to deliver the conclution. Time is yours !
# MODERATOR
Well thats the conclution of opposite team. Now Ill call the reply of
affirmative team to deliver the conclution. Time is yours!
# MODERATOR
Well thats the conclution of opposite team. Now Ill call the reply of
opposite team to deliver the conclution. Time is yours!
 # MODERATOR
Now Ill call the time keeper. time is yours!
# MODERATOR
Well thanks for our time keeper. So, ladies and gentlements , I think thats
all our debate today. Thanks for your attention and see you.
 # THE 1st OF THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM
Thank you so much for the time that given to me. Im as the first speaker
from the affirmative team. First of all, I would like to introduce my teams split.
For todays motion. Im as the first speaker from the affirmative team would like
to give the definition and give arguments from knowledge perspective. Pasek
Angga as the 2nd speaker will deliver opinions, and Lurah Shanti as the 3 rd speaker
give rebuttal and strengthening the teams arguments.
Im Sharmilla Pramesty from the affirmative team. I completely agree with
the motion this house would legalize the sale of organs . Before I deliver my
arguments. Ill be deliver the definition of legal organs.

As our knowledge of surgical and diagnostic techniques has increased with time,
so has the success rate of organ transplants. However, the number of patients who
require organ transplants exceeds the number of organs available, particularly if
the patient has a rare blood type or belongs to an ethnic minority where organ
donations are even lower than normal. For example, although black people are
three times more likely than the general population to develop kidney failure, and
the Asian community has a particularly high demand for organs, organ donation
within these groups is relatively low. It is important for the donor and recipient to
have the same blood type and similar genetic make-up in order to minimize the
change of the receivers body rejecting the organ. More than 10,000 people in the
UK currently need a transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on the
waiting list. In the US, over 100,000 people are still on the waiting list. Although
these figures are astonishing in themselves, the genuine figure is probably higher,
inflated by the deaths of patients who are never waitlisted for a transplant. Some
patients are never placed on the waiting list because they have certain habits
such as smoking and the precious few organs available are prioritised for
patients who fit recipient categories.

The sale of human organs offers a possible solution to this crippling shortage of
organs. There is already an established black market trade in organs.
Entrepreneurs offer British and Western patients the opportunity to receive
privately financed transplants in countries such as India and Malaysia.In 2006,
investigators discovered that Chinese hospitals were providing organ transplants
using the organs of executed prisoners. In 1983, Dr. Barry Jacobs requested that
the US government should create a fund to compensate the families who donate
the organs of their deceased relatives. He also proposed a business plan to buy
kidneys from living donors to transplant to American patients. However, these is
still plenty of opposition to these ideas, and the National Organ Transplantation
Act of 1984 still prohibits the sale of human organs from both dead and living
donors.

The proposition line could argue that organs are the property of the donors, and so
they have a right to do with them as they wish. In this case of buying human
organs, it is much easier to argue that the profits would go to the donor rather than
(for example) hospitals or governments which may not have a vested interest in
those concerned. It would be useful to outline in the mechanism that these organs
will be transferred through a unique medical group or business which has the
technology available to match up donors to potential recipients and so avoid
potential medical complications as far as possible. After this, it would be like any
other financial transaction. This debate will focus on the United Kingdom, but the
arguments would be relevant to most countries considering this policy change.

I think thats all my arguments. And I completely agree with the motion that would
legalize the sale of organs. Im Sharmilla back to the house
# THE 1st OF THE OPPOSITE TEAM
Thank you so much for the time that given to me. Im Gek Fitrina as the
first speaker from the opposite team. First of all, I would like to introduce my
teams split. For todays motion. Im as the first speaker from the opposite team
would like to give my opinion about the motion. Diah Novianti as the 2nd speaker
will deliver opinion from social economy perspective. And Indri Mahesti as the 3 rd
speaker give rebuttal and strengthening the teams arguments.
Im Gek Fitrina from opposite team. I want to give my opinion about the motion.
in my opinion, allowing the sale of organs will harm state-financed
health services and create a two-tier system. There is almost no chance
that a state-financed health service will be able to afford the prohibitive
cost of purchasing organs under this model. While it is difficult to track
the exact price of organs on the black market, they often reach many
thousands of pounds and there is no reason to believe that the
propositions model would suddenly reduce this price. In effect, this
would turn essential organs into luxury items which the state cannot
afford to provide, and so the poorest and neediest would be left to die.
This would condone the most gross discrimination between rich and poor
where a rich life, perhaps even despite a previously neglectful lifestyle
(for example drinking and smoking), could be prioritised over a poor
persons life where their medical condition may not have been caused by
their lifestyle choices.It is just as bad to forbid those who can afford to
buy an organ from taking a life-saving action as it is to allow poorer
people to die. In an ideal world, there would be unlimited organs; but as
organ shortages continue, if anybody can afford to skip the queue by
buying an organ whether they are generally rich or poor we should
allow them to do so.

So, ladies and gentlements based on my opinion that I have been delivered. I still
stand up on my opinion that I disagree with the motion that said that would
legalize the sale of organs.
Im Gek Fitrina back to the house.
# THE 2nd SPEAKER OF THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM
Okay thanks for the time that given to me. Im Pasek Angga as the second
speaker from the affirmative team. I want to give my rebuttal for the first
argument of negative team. We already recognize the benefits of
individuals who are able to pay for their healthcare doing so.

The ethics of private healthcare are not in question here; indeed, the UK
government has stated that as many people as possible should be encouraged to
pay for private healthcare in order to relieve the strain on national resources.
Critics have understood this as the government prolonging waiting lists until the
patients remove themselves either by going private, or dying. There is, however,
a general understanding that the NHS in the UK is overburdened and that
increased private healthcare would help to balance this. Meanwhile, in the US,
private healthcare is the norm. Allowing the sale of organs is merely an extension
of this principle and provides utilitarian benefit. Not only would those who are
able to pay for an organ enjoy a much better chance at recovery, but there would
be more time, space, and resources for the people who could not afford to do this
privately.

If payment-for-organs is introduced as a general norm, this will extend to the

state-financed hospitals which are so burdened in the first place. Few families
would turn down the opportunity to receive compensation or payment for the
families of their loved ones which could ensure financial stability, particularly if
the family member who died was the sole or main earner. Therefore, either these
families will charge the hospitals the same prices, or they will refuse to donate the
organs, and turn to a private market instead. Given that the black market price for
organs can reach tens of thousands of pounds, it seems unlikely that struggling
health systems would be able to afford it, and this would only encourage an
incredibly harmful disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest. Unless the
proposition case wants to argue that a rich person inherently has a greater right to
an organ than a poor person, their point falls.

Thats my opinion. For my reason above, I absolutely agree with the

motion. Im Pasek Angga back to the house.
 # THE 2nd OF THE OPPOSITE TEAM
Thanks for the time that has given to me. Im Diah Novianti as the second
speaker from opposite team. I want to give my rebuttal for the second opinion of
affirmative team.
I think Allowing the sale of human organs in the First World will impact
negatively on the Third World.

The existing black market already shows a firm flow of organs in one direction;
from the Third World to the First. Those who battle with poverty in poor countries
will see the opportunity to sell their organs to the wealthy West; however, current
disparities between how much donors are paid for their organs and how much
these are then sold on for shows that the donors are already exploited. Levy Izhak
Rosenbaum, a New York City resident, was accused of paying poor donors in
Israel $10,000 for a kidney but charging up to $160,000 to recipients. There is no
reason to believe, even if we legalize and regulate the organ trade within Western
countries, that people in poorer countries will not continue to be exploited in this
manner when they do not share the same legislation as us.

Given the necessity of a close match between donor and recipient blood types, and
a higher rate of transplant success within the same race rather than between races,
it is a huge exaggeration to imply that people in poor countries, such as African
states, will be scavenged for organs. Donors from these countries simply will not
always match the medical requirements of Western recipients. In fact, if the organ
did match, the balance of harms still falls in favour of donation. While the donor
should obviously be paid the amount (or very close to, given administration and
surgical costs) paid by the recipient, $10,000 to a struggling family in an
impoverished country could literally be a life-changing opportunity to lift them
out of poverty. In this case, while there may be financial pressure to donate, it is
still a reasoned and logical trade-off for financial security for a family, and could
greatly improve quality of life for both donor and recipient.

I think thats all my opinion. Based on my rebuttal, I still stand up on my opinion

that I disagree with the motion. Im Diah Novianti back to the house.
 # THE 3rd SPEAKER OF THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM
Thanks for the time that given to me. Im Lurah Shanti as the third speaker
from affirmative team, here I want to deliver the conclution of our opinion.
In conclution, Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the black market and
ensure safer transplants.Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption
currently associated with the organ market. It can also make it easy to
regulate, and so safer. Given the mystery of the black market, medical
complications are much more likely; it is necessary to match the donor
and recipient together, but this cannot be easily done when every step of
the organ collection and donation must be hidden for fear of prosecution.
Legalisation could also stop the theft or organs and abuse of people like
Chinese prisoners who are currently exploited for their organs
authorities will become accountable to a publicly recognised and
enforced system.

If certain people are already risking punishment by harvesting and transplanting

organs illegally, it seems unlikely that they will suddenly become accountable to a
system that recognises that organs can be bought and sold arbitrarily. If Chinese
officials are already suspected of these activities, it would be very difficult to
ensure that profit from the donated organs did go to the donors or their families
rather than corrupt authorities. Finally, legalizing an action that is currently carried
out in appalling conditions essentially legitimizes appalling human rights
violations, and allows human sacrifice.

Thats the conclution of our team. So, ladies and gentlement based on the
definition, limitation and opinion of our team, we are still stand up on our opinion
that we are agree with the motion that would legalize the sale of organs.
Im Lurah Shanti back to the house.
 # THE 3rd SPEAKER OF THE OPPOSITE TEAM
Thanks for the time that given to me, Im Indri Mahesti as the last speaker
from opposite team, I want to deliver the conclusion of our teams opinion.
In the conclusion, There are better solutions to the problems of organ
shortages, such as the BMA system of presumed consent. The British
Medical Association (BMA) is pushing to introduce a policy of
presumed consent, whereby organs may be taken from a patient who
has died unless they expressly registered their objection to this before
their death. Given that a far larger percentage of people indicate that they
would be happy to donate than the percentage who actually do donate,
this scheme could combat apathy on behalf of the general society and
encourage them to act rather than ignoring or forgetting the option to
donate their organs. This is particularly true in the categories of people
who said that they didnt know how to register, had never thought
about joining or who hadnt got round to it comprising a total of 53%
of the participants in the NHS nationwide survey. This scheme could
have an enormous impact in saving the lives of others through a much
greater number of available organs. Several countries, including Spain
and Austria have already adopted an opt-out system, and studies have
shown that this policy has caused a dramatic increase in the number of
donations. We can solve the organ shortage without all of the problems
inherent in the propositions proposal.

Would the idea of presumed consent stand up in any other area of the law,
particularly in cases considering a drastic action performed on the body? The
BMA system completely undermines the UKs current conception of consent,
particularly that you must be given enough information to enable you to make a
decision. There is no way to assess if a patient who has not opted-out of a system
like the BMA proposes has truly had enough knowledge of the subject to make an
informed decision especially considering that 36% of the nationwide survey
conducted by UK Transplant were unaware the NHS Organ Donor Register
existed. Until the general public has a much, much better understanding of the
donor system in which case most citizens would likely opt-in anyway this
system is inherently flawed. Moreover, the potential impact on a grieving family,
if they find out that their relatives organs had been presumptively taken, is very
serious. Family objections are already a problem even in cases where the relative
actively opted-in; this would continue to cause greater outrage if the BMA system
were implemented.

So, based on the definition and opinion above we are not agree with the
motion that would legalize the sale of organs.. Okay ladies and gentlemen , Im
Indri Mahesti back to the house.
 # THE REPLY OF THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM
Thanks for the time that given to me. Im Ratih Artasari as the replay from
affirmative team, here I want to deliver the conclution of affirmative team.
In conclution, Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the black market and
ensure safer transplants.Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption
currently associated with the organ market. It can also make it easy to
regulate, and so safer. Given the mystery of the black market, medical
complications are much more likely; it is necessary to match the donor
and recipient together, but this cannot be easily done when every step of
the organ collection and donation must be hidden for fear of prosecution.
Legalisation could also stop the theft or organs and abuse of people like
Chinese prisoners who are currently exploited for their organs
authorities will become accountable to a publicly recognised and
enforced system.
Thats the conclution of our team. So, ladies and gentlement based on the
definition, limitation and opinion of our team, we are still stand up on our opinion
that we are agree with the motion that would legalize the sale of organs.
Im Ratih Artasari back to the house.
 # THE REPLY SPEAKER OF THE OPPOSITE TEAM
Thanks for the time that given to me, Im Gung Sri Kusuma as the reply
from opposite team, I want to deliver the conclusion.
In the conclusion, There are better solutions to the problems of organ
shortages, such as the BMA system of presumed consent. The British
Medical Association (BMA) is pushing to introduce a policy of
presumed consent, whereby organs may be taken from a patient who
has died unless they expressly registered their objection to this before
their death. Given that a far larger percentage of people indicate that they
would be happy to donate than the percentage who actually do donate,
this scheme could combat apathy on behalf of the general society and
encourage them to act rather than ignoring or forgetting the option to
donate their organs. This is particularly true in the categories of people
who said that they didnt know how to register, had never thought
about joining or who hadnt got round to it comprising a total of 53%
of the participants in the NHS nationwide survey. This scheme could
have an enormous impact in saving the lives of others through a much
greater number of available organs. Several countries, including Spain
and Austria have already adopted an opt-out system, and studies have
shown that this policy has caused a dramatic increase in the number of
donations. We can solve the organ shortage without all of the problems
inherent in the propositions proposal.

So, based on the definition and opinion above we are not agree with the
motion that would legalize the sale of organs.. Okay ladies and gentlemen , Im
Gung Sri back to the house.
 # THE TIME KEEPER
(TK: The first speaker of the Affirmative team
spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The first speaker of the Negative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The second speaker of the Affirmative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The second speaker of the Negative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The third speaker of the Affirmative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The third speaker of the Negative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The Reply speaker of the Affirmative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)

(TK: The Reply speaker of the Negative team

spent............................minutes................................seconds)