R1 neg v. Northwestern MV

2nr AT: MatasMatas oversimplifiesLeichtman 2006 University of Michigan Division of Nephrology (Alan and Gabriel Danovitch, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Kidney vending: the Trojan horse of organ transplantation, Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1:1133)As physicians and nephrologists who are actively engaged in the evaluation and the treatment of kidney transplant candidates, recipients, and donors, we are concerned by what we see as a growing threat to the core values that have permitted organ transplantation to flourish during the last half century. Kidney vending, once considered taboo in respectable circles, is being debated with some frequency, and in this issue of JASN, specific proposals for implementation have been made. To his credit, Matas (1) presents his case in a rational and dispassionate manner. In the professional and lay press, however, there has been a disturbing change of tone. Those who oppose vending have been derided as beancounters and high-minded moralists (2); the current system has been described as a failure (3); routine psychological evaluation of donors has been described as intrusive, demeaning (4); the Institute of Medicines caution against treating the body as if it were for sale (5) has been described as outdated thinking (6); and respected transplant professionals have been castigated in the national press because of their concern for the potential exploitation of donors (7).There is a lot at stake. The altruistic impulses of living donors and of the families of deceased donors are on the auction block and risk being displaced by the uncertainties of an unfamiliar market place. Matas seems unconcerned by this possibility, and to some proponents of organ vending, the anticipated demise of altruism in organ donation even comes as a blessing (2). To the detractors of our current altruism-based system, the acceptance by the general public of the difficult concepts (brain death, donation after cardiac death, living donation, etc.) that are at the core of our work is taken for granted, because the supply of donors has been inadequate for the need. Dollars will solve our problem: Put kidneys up for sale (valued at approximately $90,000 by Matass estimate [8]) and there will be enough organs for everyone. Imagine: No more waiting lists. And it all will be above board and run by regional organ procurement organizations and professional panels that will vet donors, protect their health, allocate the kidneys, and administer the finances (1)all done in a manner that is beyond reproach. We are skeptical.1nc1nc PoliticsIrans top priority but Obamas PC holds off override nowEverett, 1/21/15 (Burgess, Democratic Iran hawks hesitate on overriding Obama; Obamas overtures to Senate Democrats complicate matters for Republicans working on sanctions bills, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/iran-senate-democrats-barack-obama-114467.html?hp=r1_4, JMP)Republicans are eager to rumble with the White House over sanctions on Iran, but they may have trouble getting President Barack Obamas Democratic critics to go along.A day after Obama vowed to veto any bill that could jeopardize nuclear talks with Tehran, Republicans were working on two pieces of legislation that could move in conjunction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus address to Congress on Feb. 11. But it quickly became clear that Republicans have a problem: Senate Democrats who might not like Obamas policies on Iran but may not be ready to override their president, especially after the forceful arguments he made in the State of the Union.In interviews Wednesday, several Democrats who had supported a previous version of Iran legislation sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said they are reconsidering their positions. Meanwhile, a previous version of an Iran bill offered by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) did not have any Democratic co-sponsors.Last week, at the Senate Democratic retreat in Baltimore, Obama forcefully made a case against further Iran legislation. He did the same thing Tuesday night in front of millions of Americans, saying he would veto any sanctions legislation because it would all but guarantee that diplomacy fails.Obamas words appear to be sinking in.Im considering very seriously the very cogent points that hes made in favor of delaying any congressional action, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Im talking to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And I think they are thinking, and rethinking, their positions in light of the points that the president and his team are making to us.Asked if hes spoken directly to Obama about Iran, Blumenthal said: The president and his staff are in touch with all of us.Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he is actively weighing the presidents position against Warners own belief that Congress needs to keep pressure on Iran. Even the hawkish Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who said Wednesday that the administrations comments sound like talking points straight from Tehran, was noncommittal on whether he would again co-sponsor Iranian sanctions legislation that he once led. I have no idea yet, Menendez said.The issue, said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, is one of timing. While Democrats and Republicans alike want to be tough on Iran, the presidents party is more open to giving Obama some breathing room.Theres overwhelming support to toughen up the sanctions, said Schumer, a member of Democratic leadership who co-sponsored sanctions legislation last year. The question is when. At times in the past the president asked for a little time, until March. Thats something people are looking at.Kirks bill would impose new sanctions if diplomatic talks fall apart or Iran violates an interim deal. Corkers would allow Congress an up-or-down vote to reject or approve any final deal between the U.S. and its allies and Iran. Sources familiar with the process in both chambers said Republicans have made no final decision on which bill will provide the base for the legislation. Another option is merging versions of the two bills, though Corker doubted that would happen. The House is also working on new sanctions legislation.A decision is expected in the near future, with a vote perhaps as early as February, given the support Iran legislation enjoys from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).On the GOP bill to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Obama swiftly came out with a veto threat because it was clear not enough Democrats in Congress would vote to override him. Thats not the case for Iran: Sixty senators publicly supported sanctions legislation in the last Congress, but it was widely believed that more Democrats would have voted for the bill if it had come to the floor.Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the vote would be a nail-biter if it were held today. But he expects enough Democrats to have Obamas back to reject an override, whether on tightening sanctions or requiring congressional approval for a nuclear deal.If I had to be pushed, Id guess theres at least 34 that would say: This is premature, we should wait, Durbin said in an interview. If theres anything that we would do that would jeopardize the negotiations, I think many Democrats would oppose it.Republicans think Democrats are bluffing and will be unable to oppose hardline legislation on Iran, whatever form it takes. But they acknowledge that its a tricky calculus to get to 67 votes when the president is leaning so hard on Democrats to hold the line, which might require legislation quite different from whats been proposed so far.At some point, were going to get to the magic 67 and be able to override this veto, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). Were in the process of figuring out what that would look like to command the broadest possible support in the Senate. And then well have that debate with the president.Of course, the GOP may have further problems getting to 67 thanks to defections from Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who have stayed away from new sanctions legislation.While negotiations are going on, I worry that we will fracture our coalition, Flake said of Western nations that have coordinated on Iran negotiations and sanctions. I want to keep that coalition together.Secretary of State John Kerry aims to have a framework for a deal by March, so the race is on in the Senate to beat him to the punch. The Banking Committee postponed its vote on the Kirk bill this week but will move swiftly next week with a hearing Tuesday, a classified briefing from the administration on Jan. 28 and a committee vote Jan. 29, Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said. Corker is also ramping up activity he held a hearing on Iran on Wednesday and is moving toward developing a new draft bill.Massive backlash to organ sales and the link alone turns caseCaplan, 7 NYU bioethics division head and professor [Arthur, Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Columbia, Drs. William F and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor and head of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, "Do No Harm: The Case Against Oran Sales from Living Persons," Living Donor Transplantation, ed by Henkie Tan, p432-434, google books, accessed 8-27-14]

What little data exist show that health-care providers are opposed to markets (19). If they are not willing to support markets out of moral reservations, then markets simply will not be effectively implemented. Even more important than a patent lack of enthusiasm for markets among those who would be expected to serve them, major religions and cultural views in the developed world will not countenance a market in living body parts (20-22), Various Popes, for example, have made quite clear the Catholic Church's aversion to markets in organs. Anglo-American law, ever since the days in which markets in body parts resulted in graveyards being stripped to supply medical schools with teaching materials, has not recognized any property interest in the human body and its organs (22). Alienating religions and cultures which do not view the body as property would have a devastating impact on the supply of organs available. Indeed, some sub-populations in the United States, particularly African Americans, are as likely to be turned off by the institution of a market in body parts because of their historical experiences with slavery and a keen distrust of medicine, as they are to be motivated to become sellers to the rich (23-26). The argument that increasing the supply of organs through sales will be efficient and cost- effective is not persuasive. It will take real and expensive resources to try to regulate and police a market in organs. Since markets, even regulated ones, would shift the supply of organs toward those who can afford to buy them, those who cannot might well withdraw from participation in the deceased-donor organ system, thereby putting in peril any overall increase in the pool of organs available to transplant. The case for kidney sales is not persuasive. Existing experience with markets has been dismal. The notion that free choice supports the creation of markets in human body parts does not square with the reality of what leads people to be likely to want to sell them. The devastating moral cost to medicine of engaging in organ-brokering is far too great a price to pay for the meager benefit in supply that might be had by those in need of transplants. The storm of opposition that markets will trigger in many individuals based on religious or cultural objections may actually produce a decrease rather than an increase in the overall pool of transplantable organs- an outcome that by itself would make calls for the creation of markets dubious.That directly trades-off with the political capital necessary to prevent a veto override on Iran sanctions. Failure will spur prolif and war with Iran.Beauchamp, 11/6/14 --- B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivans The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines, now writes for Vox (Zack, How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress, JMP)

There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond just the US: Republicans are likely to try to torpedo President Obama's ongoing efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. And they just might pull it off.November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon come to a head. Throughout his presidency, Obama has prioritized these negotiations; he likely doesn't want to leave office without having made a deal.But if Congress doesn't like the deal, or just wants to see Obama lose, it has the power to torpedo it by imposing new sanctions on Iran. Previously, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not be so kind, and he may have the votes to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries, we could see one of the most important legislative fights of Obama's presidency.Why Congress can bully Obama on Iran sanctionsAt their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include several other nations, but the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its nuclear development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran."The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international community have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To underscore the point, Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for 23 full pages.The US's sanctions are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil and do business with American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the American national interest. "In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions."The key point here is that Congress gave Obama that power which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress (where I worked for a little under two years, though not with Sofer directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal."Imposing new sanctions on Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it would undermine Obama's authority to negotiate with Iran at all, sending the message to Tehran that Obama is not worth dealing with because he can't control his own foreign policy.So if Obama wants to make a deal with Iran, he needs Congress to play ball. But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants to.Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran dealTo understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year.In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting nuclear program components like uranium production.Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December. (There is also a line of argument, though often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and that US policy should focus on coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans, joined by more hawkish Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new Iran sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote.McConnell blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security," he said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural roadblock that stood between Obama and new Iran sanctions.To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations could fall apart long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like the terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the ones on the books.And make no mistake imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through on his promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its nuclear program. "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead."Moreover, it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The United States is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it depends on international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions bite. If it looks like the US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international sanctions regime could collapse. Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer worthwhile."Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the international sanctions regime falls apart."This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last termIt's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. But a two-thirds vote could override any veto and, according to Sofer, an override is entirely within the realm of possibility."There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer says. For a variety of reasons, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle.The real fight, Sofer says, will be among the Democrats those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on Iran," Sofer says. But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume a lot of energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues."I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status these bigger issues for most Democrats."So if the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran.The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.Nuke warPhilip Stevens 13, associate editor and chief political commentator for the Financial Times, Nov 14 2013, The four big truths that are shaping the Iran talks, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af170df6-4d1c-11e3-bf32-00144feabdc0.html

The who-said-what game about last weekends talks in Geneva has become a distraction. The six-power negotiations with Tehran to curb Irans nuclear programme may yet succeed or fail. But wrangling between the US and France on the terms of an acceptable deal should not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The organising facts shaping the negotiations have not changed. The first of these is that Tehrans acquisition of a bomb would be more than dangerous for the Middle East and for wider international security. It would most likely set off a nuclear arms race that would see Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt signing up to the nuclear club. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be shattered. A future regional conflict could draw Israel into launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold war disciplines of deterrence. The second ineluctable reality is that Iran has mastered the nuclear cycle. How far it is from building a bomb remains a subject of debate. Different intelligence agencies give different answers. These depend in part on what the spooks actually know and in part on what their political masters want others to hear. The progress of an Iranian warhead programme is one of the known unknowns that have often wreaked havoc in this part of the world. Israel points to an imminent threat. European agencies are more relaxed, suggesting Tehran is still two years or so away from a weapon. Western diplomats broadly agree that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not taken a definitive decision to step over the line. What Iran has been seeking is what diplomats call a breakout capability the capacity to dash to a bomb before the international community could effectively mobilise against it. The third fact and this one is hard for many to swallow is that neither a negotiated settlement nor the air strikes long favoured by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israels prime minister, can offer the rest of the world a watertight insurance policy. It should be possible to construct a deal that acts as a plausible restraint and extends the timeframe for any breakout but no amount of restrictions or intrusive monitoring can offer a certain guarantee against Tehrans future intentions. By the same token, bombing Irans nuclear sites could certainly delay the programme, perhaps for a couple of years. But, assuming that even the hawkish Mr Netanyahu is not proposing permanent war against Iran, air strikes would not end it. You cannot bomb knowledge and technical expertise. To try would be to empower those in Tehran who say the regime will be safe only when, like North Korea, it has a weapon. So when Barack Obama says the US will never allow Iran to get the bomb he is indulging in, albeit understandable, wishful thinking. The best the international community can hope for is that, in return for a relaxation of sanctions, Iran will make a judgment that it is better off sticking with a threshold capability. To put this another way, if Tehran does step back from the nuclear brink it will be because of its own calculation of the balance of advantage. The fourth element in this dynamic is that Iran now has a leadership that, faced with the severe and growing pain inflicted by sanctions, is prepared to talk. There is nothing to say that Hassan Rouhani, the president, is any less hard-headed than previous Iranian leaders, but he does seem ready to weigh the options.

Yes war and extinction Wittner 11 Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?" 11/30/2011 www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.htmlWhile nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries international conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon.The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power."But need this lead to nuclear war?Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else."Of course, China didn't have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists.Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan.At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive -- and probably unworkable -- military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear might?Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly 300. Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would "win" any nuclear war with China.But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction.War turns structural violenceFolk, 78 Professor of Religious and Peace Studies at Bethany College, 78 [Jerry, Peace Educations Peace Studies : Towards an Integrated Approach, Peace & Change, volume V, number 1, Spring, p. 58]

Those proponents of the positive peace approach who reject out of hand the work of researchers and educators coming to the field from the perspective of negative peace too easily forget that the prevention of a nuclear confrontation of global dimensions is the prerequisite for all other peace research, education, and action. Unless such a confrontation can be avoided there will be no world left in which to build positive peace. Moreover, the blanket condemnation of all such negative peace oriented research, education or action as a reactionary attempt to support and reinforce the status quo is doctrinaire. Conflict theory and resolution, disarmament studies, studies of the international system and of international organizations, and integration studies are in themselves neutral. They do not intrinsically support either the status quo or revolutionary efforts to change or overthrow it. Rather they offer a body of knowledge which can be used for either purpose or for some purpose in between. It is much more logical for those who understand peace as positive peace to integrate this knowledge into their own framework and to utilize it in achieving their own purposes. A balanced peace studies program should therefore offer the student exposure to the questions and concerns which occupy those who view the field essentially from the point of view of negative peace.1NC KThe aff is neoliberal as all hell more on that later Neolib badquestioning underlying assumptions goodNaidu 1998 Ph.D., LL.B., LL.M., Professor of Political Science at Brandon University (M.V., Peace Research 30.2, Proquest)

All the abovearguments present globalizationas the positive, the constructive and the beneficialevolution of the modern agebeing shaped by the forces of industrialization, technologicalization and internationalization. In other words, globalization is being considered as a process that isproviding solutions toserious problems of worldwars,ecological disasters, transportationrestrictions, cultural misunderstandings, bad use of world resources, high unemployment, Third Worldpoverty,imbalances in international trade,and economic crisesresulting out of poor investments, high interest rates and high inflation. Butthe question that should be raised is--what caused these problems? Otherwise we end up with the logic of the tragedies caused by drunk driving. More policing, more fines, more restrictions on licensing or more punishment, while selling more alcohol, can't end the problem of drunk driving; at best, these steps can help as first aid. Only prohibiting alcohol consumption by drivers can eliminate drunk driving. In other words,rooting outthecauses, notthetreatment ofthesymptoms, can avoid diseases.Globalized military action can, at best, stop orlimit war, but can't eliminate war.Whatcauses haveled tothe worldwarsof the modern age, should be the question. Answer? Modern weapons and their enormous destructive capabilities.(f.6) Andmodern weaponsof wararevery much theproducts of modern industry and technology.(f.7) Modernmilitarization and weaponry of mass destruction arenowthreatening theveryexistence of life on earth.Whatfactorshavecausedtoday's life endangering phenomena ofecological disasters--the depletion of theozonelayer, thewarmingof the global temperature,(f.8) thedead rivers, lakes and oceans,deforestation, the poisoned fruits, fishes and food grains, and species extinction? Worldwiderecklessmassiveindustrializationand dehumanized science-technology.By dehumanization I mean the totalconcentrationoftheindustrieson power and profitto thealmost totalexclusion ofconcerns for human health and happiness in terms of physical, emotional, intellectual and economicwell-being. Whilemodern facilitiesof ships, planes, trains and trucks, essentials of modern industrialization and products of modern technology, have globalized transportation, they have also globalized the shipment of arms, military equipment, war tanks, battleships, submarines, bombers,(f.9) and transportation, in a matter of hours or days, of thousands of troops to wage wars in every nook and corner of the world. Besides, the massive increase in the numbers and accidents in transportation have been causing unprecedented damages to economic wealth, human health and the global ecology.(f.10) Before the advent of modern technology and industry, knowledge, especially in the realms of the histories, the religions and the cultures of the peoples of the world, was seriously limited. Consequently, international understanding was lacking. However, misunderstanding was not then a problem. Butthanks totheglobalizationof the modern modesand instrumentsofmasscommunications--from the printing press to computer chips and communication satellites--the necessary concomitants of massive industrialization--powerful techniques of propaganda,thought control and brainwashing have been globalized.Theevils ofethnicism,racism,religionism, chauvinism andjingoism(f.11)arenowspreadworldwidethrough the instrumentality of media colonialism.(f.12) An accounting of the world's natural resources today reveals the realities that the globalresourceshave either beenunused ormisused, maldeveloped or mismanaged, distortedor depleted.This globalization of resource misuse or destruction isthevery result ofunscrupulous exploitation of theglobalized colonialism. Neo-colonialism is now proclaiming that globalization of natural resources is good for all. In other words, neo-colonialism isspreading the deceptive slogan that what is good for the developedstatesisalsogood for the poorstates. The haunting fact is that out of 185 states in the world, almost 40% of world resources are used up by just one country--the United States. Can we name one politician in the United States, or in any of the developed states, whose campaign slogan is--"vote for me and I promise to reduce your standards of living?"The argumentthatThird Worldpoverty cannotbe eradicatedexceptthrough globalized effortshidesthe factthat poverty has been theveryresult of globalizedeconomicexploitationfor the industrial development of the Western world. As the only superpower, theUnitedStates hegemony isnowglobalized. Remember, the sun never sets on the globalized British Empire! The old imperialists now call themselves G-7 or G-8, the OECD countries, the developed states, the donor nations, the money lenders to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The old victims of colonial exploitation have been given new names--the protectorates, the military allies, the satellites, the Mandates of the League of Nations, the Trust Territories of the United Nations, the client states, the recipients of development assistance, and so on. Modern mass industrialization has always resulted in colonialism, i.e., the exploitation and impoverishment of the masses through deception, coercion and political domination by an elite that works for the enrichment of a handful of captains of industry and for the benefit of the ruling class.(f.13) In its early stage colonialism was domestic, i.e., within the political boundaries of the country. The victims were the landless peasantry, the slaves bought or captured, the ethnic and religious minorities, destitute women and children, and the undeveloped regions in the country. These victims were best portrayed by the British novelist Charles Dickens and by American writers like Jane Addams. As industrialization advanced, colonial exploitation reached foreign lands. Military conquests and occupations of territories in Asia, Africa and the Western Hemisphere created colonies(f.14) that became the backbone of European industrialization by supplying vast natural resources(f.15), enormous slave or cheap labor, millions of captive consumers, and tremendous opportunities for trade, investment,(f.16) employment and emigration. Thus domestic colonialism evolved into international colonialism. In other words, colonialism was globalized.Massive industrialization is impossible without globalized colonialization. Colonialization, in turn, is unavoidable by globalized industrialization. Because modern economy of mass industrialization--i.e., the economy of mass production, mass distribution and mass consumption--cannot be sustained without colonial exploitation,neo-colonialismnowwears the garbs of globalization--offoreign aid,(f.17) ofinternationalinvestment,offree trade, oftechnology transfer, and so on. It is an oxymoron to argue that globalized poverty and economic inequalities can be eliminated by globalized industrialization and neo-imperialism. Today one-third of the world controls three-fourths of world trade. Yet this phenomenon is considered a reflection of beneficial globalization whose advocates are now calling for further globalization through expanded free-market economies. Economically developed countries benefit through unrestricted trade in two ways: one, they are ever ready to buy or secure raw materials from the Third World countries, but not their finished products. The other, they have enormous surpluses of finished products to sell to the developing countries. These proponents have already set up free trade zones like the Canada-U.S. Free Trade agreement, NAFTA, the European Common Market, the OECD, the World Trade Organization, etc. The globalization of free trade is undoubtedly to the advantage of the developed states. On the other hand, the less developed states that cannot earn much through international trade can ill afford to buy foreign goods. If they do buy, out of pressure or unavoidability, they become heavily indebted.(f.18) These debts, in turn, retard their economic development. More than this, the less developed industries of the Third World that cannot compete, either in quality or in quantity, with the products from developed economies, need protection. In the words of Kaiser,free tradeisthe weapon of the strong, and protectionism is the shield of the weak. As long as economic inequalities existin the world, and as long as the rich and developed states insist on improving or sustaining their own development, globalization of free tradewill never bring about equitable tradeamong all states of the world. In every case of massive industrialization,some groupsand regions within and without the statealways end upas thevictimssuffering trade inequalities. Another tragic consequence that is often played down by the advocates of massive industrialization is the fact that the more technological and industrialized an economy becomes, the more susceptible its economy becomes to increased unemployment. Irrespective of all the complex and complicated explanations offered by the sophisticated economists with econometric models, the simple truth behind unemployment is the fact that mechanization displaces workers; automation decreases human employment by making workers surplus or redundant.(f.19) Advanced industrialization, whether under capitalism, communism or fascism, becomes dehumanized when it pays least or no attention to the fate of the workers and the problems of the unemployed. Instead, its main focus is on the twin goals of increasing productivity and competitiveness, both of which mean higher levels of mechanization, automation and rationalization, leading inevitably to lower levels of employment. When European industrialization during the 18th and 19th centuries made workers redundant, Europe got rid of the surplus of the unemployed and the unemployable population in more than one way. The main method of reducing the unemployable and the unwanted was sending them away to new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and so on. Today people of European ancestry--pure or mixed--living outside Europe amount to hundreds of millions. Most of the European emigrants were peasants, unemployed workers and artisans, criminals, social misfits and exploited ethnic, racial, and religious minorities. These colonies of Europeans not only saved and supported European industries by absorbing the unwanted population of Europe, the colonies also boosted European industrialization by becoming suppliers of raw materials, primary industries, cheap labor, huge markets, big profits, large investment and employment opportunities. Besides, the colonies also provided arms, armies(f.20) and battlefields, thereby enhancing the military capability to fight colonial wars,(f.21) to defend old possessions or to acquire new territories. These factors further boosted European commerce, diplomacy and international power status. Asprofitabilityof mass industriesleads to huge capital surpluses,need arises for investment opportunities. Of course,only the rich nationsand the wealthy multinational corporations (MNCs)seek outlets for their surplus wealth. Therecipients for such investments are always the poorand the not-so-rich nations. Thecurrenteuphemisms for such surplus tradeand investmentsare foreign aid,development loans,technological assistance, free markets, financial assistance from the World Bank or International Monetary Fund, and so on. The recent proposal called the Multinational Agreement on Investments (MAI) by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), consisting of the 29 richest nations in the world, is a good example of the latest neo-colonial machinations.(f.22) Whileproclaiming pious platitudes of humanitarianism,thelenders andinvestors, of course,workfortheir ownprofitability.It is like my banker who lends me money and seeks high interest and a mortgage on everything I own, and then claims that he was doing me a favor, while awaiting to confiscate my possessions the moment I fail to make the payments. Without the opportunities to substantially increase my earnings, I end up being at the mercy of the bank, borrowing more to pay the interest on previous borrowings. My banker Shylock will not hesitate to demand his pound of my flesh! Should I feel grateful to this Shylock?Globalization of trade, investment and banking(f.23) can only mean furtherdictation anddomination of the developed countriesand furtherindebtedness and impoverishmentof the undeveloped or developing countries. The globalized Shylock will undoubtedly demand the pound of flesh from the globalized debtors.Countries like the G-7that control most of the world's trade, investment and lending, indirectly control the world's financial markets; theycan manipulate interest rates, stock markets,currency values, inflation, deflation, etc. The recent episodes of thefinancialcollapse of the seemingly thrivingindustrialization andeconomies ofcountries likeSouth Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia stand as testimonyto the fact that the so-called development of the dependent economies can be flimsy(f.24), deceptive, corrupt and dehumanized. Thus theglobalizationof the financial markets simplymeansthestrengthening of the strangleholdthatthe developed worldhason the economies of the underdeveloped world. There is no gainsaying thatwars, ecological disasters,transportation bottlenecks,cultural misunderstandings and brainwashinghave become globalized.Theroot causesof these problemsare massive and dehumanized technology and industrialization. Similarly, the evils of globalizedpoverty and economic inequalities, globalizedmisuse of world resourcesand international trade, and globalized manipulation of the world's investments and financial marketsare the results of massive industrialization and colonialismand neocolonialism--domestic and external.The antidotefor these cases of economic globalizationis not more globalization, but lessof it. The distinction between "globalization from the top" and "globalization from the bottom" is false. The premisethat we can evolve a "globalized civil society" out of the "globalized militaristic society" is misleading.Superficialglobalizedcounter-moves for immediate solutionscan only be counter-productive.The targetof attackfor the evils of globalizationshould be globalization,through in-depth and long-term measures,not throughband-aid treatments.In ordertoreduce andeliminatetheroot causes,measures should be initiated to reducein varying stages thecurrent levels of technologicalization, industrialization and dehumanization of world economies. This means decentralization, devolution and indiginization of huge economies into small-scale and self-sustaining economies. Such small economies will only need small-sized and self-governing polities. In a word, small can be beautiful.Reductionin the economic-political systemimplies fundamental changes at theintellectualand culturallevel--a reduction in the aspiration of material wealth, greed and selfishness, and an expansion in the values of co-operation, compassion and humanism. Thesechanges in politico-economic-cultural aspectsof life necessitate a paradigm shift. Two main arguments can be raised against the proposed paradigm shift. One, science-technology and industry are not inherently negative or immoral, because they are non-human and therefore amoral. It is their misuse or misdirection that causes problems discussed above. The other, reduction or elimination of massive industrialization and technologicalization is neither practical nor desirable. The first argument is falsely formulated because thecriticism is not of science-technology and industryper se;thecriticism is of their massiveness andtheirdehumanization.Whentheirimpactson human life and well-beingare deliberately disregardedby those who use them, thenscience-technology and industry become dehumanizedand cause all the evils of our modern age. It may be argued that science-technology and industry by themselves are not harmful or immoral. This argument is similar to the one which says that a sword by itself does not kill people; people using it kill people. Therefore the sword is amoral! But in the human context, the very purpose (telos) in the creation of the sword is to inflict physical harm or death on human beings. The sword is not meant to till the soil. It is not built to serve as a crutch for a lame person. The destructive purpose of the sword will not change until it is beaten into a ploughshare. But when it becomes a ploughshare, it is not a sword by definition. For modern science-technology and mass industries power and profit have become the driving forces, and materialism has become the cherished goal. Power is the capacity of A to influence, persuade, dominate, coerce or force B so as to make B do or not do something according to the will of A. Profit reflects the drive and the desire to buy, acquire or possess material wealth. The craze for power, pelf or profit, either at the personal or national level, usually resorts to unscrupulousness, exploitativeness and immorality. Obsession with materialism devalues intellectual or spiritual goals and induces instinctual behavior, thereby reducing Homo sapiens to the level of beasts. Thus dehumanized science-technology and industries would cause greater harm when further globalized.Those who arguethatlimiting globalizationof science-technology and industryis impracticaland hence impossible, seem toadhere tothe doctrines offatalismor predestination or historicism similar to the Augustinian concept of original sin and damnation, or Herbert Spencer's concept of social Darwinism, or the Marxist concept of historical materialism or the evolutionist concept of unidirectional linear progression. Though raised in the name of realism, none of these concepts are rational, real or proven; all of them are cynical or pessimistic. Does the argument of impracticality mean the inevitability of globalized self-destruction of humanity? Cannot human Karma (action) play a part in shaping human destiny? Is it unrealistic to believe that human suffering and destruction can be limited, reduced or eliminated through deglobalization of weapons and wars, and through deglobalization of political oppression, economic exploitation, and environmental degradation? When someone claims to be "practical," she really means that she will get what she wants by hook or crook.In this sense, any means whatsoever could be employed to achieve the ends one desires. That is, the ends should not determine in any way the means to be employed. This approach, thus sets up a dichotomy between ends and means. Further, when someone argues that something is impractical, she really means she cannot be successful in attaining her goals. In this sense, success is the essential consideration. The argument that there is no interrelatedness between ends and means is a false dichotomy. The seed predetermines the nature of the tree, the flower and the fruit, the results. Similarly, hate-filled or violent or immoral means are bound to lead to results that endorse or establish hatred or violence or immorality. When people are obsessed with success, they want to get what they want within a prescribed or a short period of time, and if they cannot, then they won't even try. When effort is enslaved to success, human will loses its autonomy; and pessimism and cynicism that set in rob humanity of its challenge and dynamism. To avoid such losses, we should focus upon and emphasize the view that effort is essential, not the result, that struggle is important, not the success! For the cynics, being "practical" means being successful in achieving any goal by any means. Success is critical; means could be immoral or amoral. The Gandhian paradigm of "practical idealism" overcomes both the problems of bad means and of obsession with success. The paradigm avoids the artificial dichotomy between ends and means by postulating that moral means are essential for moral goals; the formulation avoids cynicism and frustration by focusing on the struggle without any concern over its success, and by prescribing modest measures that are feasible in a given situation. The Gandhian paradigm can be translated into two simple phrases--"Think morally and act morally," and "Think globally and act locally." In fine,deglobalization of dehumanized science-technology and mass industrialization can be pursued through practical idealism.In conclusion,globalization is not the panacea for the world crises; instead it is the deepening of the crises. The answer to the problems of globalization is decrease, not increase, in globalization. Rehumanization of science-technology and industrialization is the permanent panacea for the 21st century.Vote neg to reject the neoliberal paradigm. Refusing narratives of inevitability and legitimation best for political engagement.Hay, PHD POLSIS, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham 2004(Colin, Economy and Society Volume 33 Number 4 November 2004: 500-527 p.523-4)Accordingly, however depoliticized and normalized neoliberalism has become, it remains a political and economic choice, not a simple necessity. This brings us naturally to the question of alternatives. A number of points might here be made which follow fairly directly from the above analysis. First, our ability to offer alternatives to neoliberalism rests now on our ability to identify that there is a choice in such matters and, in so doing, to demystify and deconstruct the rationalist premises upon which its public legitimation has been predicated. This, it would seem, is a condition of the return of a more normative and engaging form of politics in which more is at stake than the personnel to administer a largely agreed and ostensibly technical neoliberal reform agenda. Second, the present custodians of neoliberalism are, in many cases, reluctant converts, whose accommodation to neoliberalism is essentially borne of perceived pragmatism and necessity rather than out of any deep normative commitment to the sanctity of the market. Thus, rather than defend neoliberalism publicly and in its own terms, they have sought instead to appeal to the absence of a choice which might be defended in such terms. Consequently, political discourse is technocratic rather than political. Furthermore, as Peter Burnham has recently noted, neoliberalism is itself a deeply depoliticizing paradigm (2001), whose effect is to subordinate social and political priorities, such as might arise from a more dialogic, responsive and democratic politics, to perceived economic imperatives and to the ruthless efficiency of the market. As I have sought to demonstrate, this antipathy to politics is a direct correlate of public choice theorys projection of its most cherished assumption of instrumental rationality onto public officials. This is an important point, for it suggests the crucial role played by stylized rationalist assumptions, particularly (as in the overload thesis, public choice theory more generally and even the time-inconsistency thesis) those which relate to the rational conduct of public officials, in contributing to the depoliticizing dynamics now reflected in political disaffection and disengagement. As this perhaps serves to indicate, seemingly innocent assumptions may have alarmingly cumulative consequences. Indeed, the internalization of a neoliberalism predicated on rationalist assumptions may well serve to render the so-called rational voter paradox something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.12 The rational voter paradox / that in a democratic polity in which parties behave in a rational manner it is irrational for citizens to vote (since the chances of the vote they cast proving decisive are negligible) / has always been seen as the central weakness of rational choice theory as a set of analytical techniques for exploring electoral competition. Yet, as the above analysis suggests, in a world constructed in the image of rationalist assumptions, it may become depressingly accurate. Political parties behaving in a narrowly rational manner, assuming others (electors and market participants) to behave in a similarly rational fashion will contribute to a dynamic which sees real electors (rational or otherwise) disengage in increasing numbers from the facade of electoral competition. That this is so is only reinforced by a final factor. The institutionalization and normalization of neoliberalism in many advanced liberal democracies in recent years have been defended in largely technical and rationalist terms and in a manner almost entirely inaccessible to public political scrutiny, contestation and debate. The electorate, in recent years, has not been invited to choose between competing programmatic mandates to be delivered in office, but to pass a judgement on the credibility and competence of the respective candidates for high office to behave in the appropriate (technical) manner in response to contingent external stimuli. Is it any wonder that they have chosen, in increasing numbers, not to exercise any such judgement at all at the ballot box? As this final point suggests, the rejection of the neoliberal paradigm, the demystification of its presumed inevitability and the rejection of the technical and rationalist terms in which that defence has been constructed are intimately connected. They are, moreover, likely to be a condition not only of the return of normative politics but also of the re-animation of a worryingly disaffected and disengaged democratic culture.

1nc CPText: The fifty states should, through the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Law, amend the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act to require routine recovery of cadaveric organs in the event of brain death, subject only to application for religious exemption.The United States should recognize property rights regarding the donation of human tissue for scientific or clinical ends, but criminalize the sale of human organs.Organ draft solves case and avoids exploitation DASpital, 7 - Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York (Aaron, Routine Recovery of Cadaveric Organs for Transplantation: Consistent, Fair, and Life-Saving CJASN March 2007 vol. 2 no. 2 300-303, doi: 10.2215/CJN.03260906)

Transplant candidates and the people who care for them know only too well that there is a severe shortage of acceptable organs. As a result, in the United States alone, approximately 19 people on the transplant waiting list die every day (1). Compounding this tragedy is the fact that many potentially life-saving cadaverica organs are not procured (2). Clearly, our organ procurement system fails to meet our needs. Recognition of this failure has led to several radical proposals designed to increase the number of organs that are recovered for transplantation, including legalization of organ sales (3) and offering priority status to people who agree to posthumous organ recovery (4). But before reaching for a new approach, we need to ask first, What is wrong with our current cadaveric organ procurement system?The Need for Consent: Widely Accepted but Sometimes DeadlyWe believe that the major problem with our present cadaveric organ procurement system is its absolute requirement for consent. As such, the systems success depends on altruism and voluntarism. Unfortunately, this approach has proved to be inefficient. Despite tremendous efforts to increase public commitment to posthumous organ donation, exemplified most recently by the US Department of Health and Human Services sponsored Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative (5), many families who are asked for permission to recover organs from a recently deceased relative still say no (2). The result is a tragic syllogism: nonconsent leads to nonprocurement of potentially life-saving organs, and nonprocurement limits the number of people who could have been saved through transplantation; therefore, nonconsent results in loss of life.In an attempt to overcome this consent barrier while retaining personal control over the disposition of ones body after death, several countries have enacted opting-out policies, sometimes referred to (erroneously, we believe) as presumed consent (6). Under these plans, cadaveric organs can be procured for transplantation unless the decedentor her family after her deathhad expressed an objection to organ recovery. Although there is evidence that this approach increases recovery rates, perhaps by changing the default from nondonation to donation (7,8), the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on organ donation concluded that a presumed consent policy should not be adopted in the United States at this time (8). One of the most important concerns noted by the IOM committee is the results of a 2005 survey in which 30% of the respondents said that they would opt out under a presumed consent law. The IOM report also pointed out that in the United States there seems to be a lack of public support for this approach, that the organ donation rate in the United States currently exceeds that of many countries with presumed consent policies, and that in most of these countries the family of the decedent is still consulted (8). It should also be noted that even opting-out countries do not have enough organs to meet their needs, and for people who remain unaware of the plan, presumed consent becomes routine recovery in disguise.Given that some people do not want to donate, it is clear that whether we follow an opting-in or an opting-out approach, life-saving organs are and will continue to be lost because of refusals. In other words, the requirement for consent, whether explicit or presumed, is responsible for some deaths. But isnt this the price that we must pay to show respect for people after they die? We believe that the answer is no.The view that consent is an absolute requirement for cadaveric organ recovery has long been accepted as self-evident, and few experts in the field have seen the need to justify it. We agree that the premortem wishes of the deceased regarding the postmortem disposition of his or her property should generally be respected. However, we believe that the obligation to honor these (or the familys) wishes is prima facie, not absolute, and that it ceases to exist when the cost is unnecessary loss of human life, which is often precisely what happens when permission for organ recovery is denied. Therefore, given the current severe organ shortage and its implications for patients who are on the waiting list, we propose that the requirement for consent for cadaveric organ recovery be eliminated and that whenever a person dies with transplantable organs, these be recovered routinely (911). Consent for such recovery should be neither required nor sought. In our opinion, the practical and ethical arguments for this proposal are compelling.Routine Removal: Consistency with Other Socially Desirable but Intrusive ProgramsOne of the major reasons for insisting on consent is to show respect for autonomy, a major principle of biomedical ethics. However, Beauchamp and Childress (12) pointed out that as important as this principle is, it has only prima facie standing and can be overridden by competing moral considerations. One such consideration occurs when society is so invested in attaining a certain goal that is designed to promote the public good that it mandates its citizens to behave in a manner that increases the probability of achieving that goal, even though many of them would prefer not to act in this way. Silver (13) pointed out the legitimacy of this approach in his discussion of an organ draft: The sense behind the coercive power of democratic governments is to move society forward by public decree where individuals will not, by private volition, act in their own best interests. Examples of such situations include a military draft during wartime, taxation, mandatory vaccination of children who attend public school, jury duty, and, perhaps most relevant to routine removal of cadaveric organs, mandatory autopsy when foul play is suspected. Although some people may not like the fact that they have no choice about these programs, the vast majority of us accept their existence as necessary to promote the common good. Routine removal of cadaveric organs would be consistent with this established approach, and it would save many lives at no more (and we believe much less) cost than these other mandated programs. Furthermore, had we been born into a world where cadaveric organ removal for transplantation were routine, it is likely that few if any people would question the policy, just as few of us question mandatory autopsy today. And while most of us will never need a transplant, nonrecipients would also benefit from the plan in the same way that people who never file a claim benefit from the security of having insurance. It should also be noted here that, as discussed below, a persons autonomy is lost after death.Recovering Cadaveric Organs without Consent: Life-Saving and FairFew would argue against the view that routine removal of usable cadaveric organs would save many lives. Under such a program, recovery of transplantable organs should approach 100%. It is unlikely that any program designed to increase consent rates could even come close. Although the expected high efficiency of routine recovery is its major raison dtre, it also has several other advantages. Routine recovery would be much simpler and cheaper to implement than proposals designed to stimulate consent because there would be no need for donor registries, no need to train requestors, no need for stringent governmental regulation, no need to consider paying for organs, and no need for permanent public education campaigns. The plan would eliminate the added stress that is experienced by some families and staff who are forced to confront the often emotionally wrenching question of consent for recovery. Delays in the removal of transplantable organs, which sometimes occur while awaiting the familys decision and which can jeopardize organ quality, would also be eliminated.A final advantage of routine posthumous organ recovery is that it is more equitable than are systems that require consent. All people would be potential contributors, and all would be potential beneficiaries. No longer could one say, Thank you, when offered an organ but say, No, when asked to give one; such free riders would be eliminated. And concern about exploitation of the poor, as sometimes arises during discussions of organ sales, is not an issue here.

Risk FramingTheyre wrong about predictions and voting for them makes it worseFitzsimmons, 7 Ph.D. in international security policy from the University of Maryland, Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, analyst in the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division at the Institute for Defense Analyses (Michael, The Problem of Uncertainty in Strategic Planning, Survival, Winter 06/07)

In defence of prediction Uncertainty is not a new phenomenon for strategists. Clausewitz knew that many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain. In coping with uncertainty, he believed that what one can reasonably ask of an officer is that he should possess a standard of judgment, which he can gain only from knowledge of men and affairs and from common sense. He should be guided by the laws of probability.34 Granted, one can certainly allow for epistemological debates about the best ways of gaining a standard of judgment from knowledge of men and affairs and from common sense. Scientific inquiry into the laws of probability for any given strate- gic question may not always be possible or appropriate. Certainly, analysis cannot and should not be presumed to trump the intuition of decision-makers. Nevertheless, Clausewitzs implication seems to be that the burden of proof in any debates about planning should belong to the decision-maker who rejects formal analysis, standards of evidence and probabilistic reasoning. Ultimately, though, the value of prediction in strategic planning does not rest primarily in getting the correct answer, or even in the more feasible objective of bounding the range of correct answers. Rather, prediction requires decision-makers to expose, not only to others but to themselves, the beliefs they hold regarding why a given event is likely or unlikely and why it would be important or unimportant. Richard Neustadt and Ernest May highlight this useful property of probabilistic reasoning in their renowned study of the use of history in decision-making, Thinking in Time. In discussing the importance of probing presumptions, they contend: The need is for tests prompting questions, for sharp, straightforward mechanisms the decision makers and their aides might readily recall and use to dig into their own and each others presumptions. And they need tests that get at basics somewhat by indirection, not by frontal inquiry: not what is your inferred causation, General? Above all, not, what are your values, Mr. Secretary? ... If someone says a fair chance ... ask, if you were a betting man or woman, what odds would you put on that? If others are present, ask the same of each, and of yourself, too. Then probe the differences: why? This is tantamount to seeking and then arguing assumptions underlying different numbers placed on a subjective probability assessment. We know of no better way to force clarification of meanings while exposing hidden differences ... Once differing odds have been quoted, the question why? can follow any number of tracks. Argument may pit common sense against common sense or analogy against analogy. What is important is that the experts basis for linking if with then gets exposed to the hearing of other experts before the lay official has to say yes or no.35 There are at least three critical and related benefits of prediction in strate- gic planning. The first reflects Neustadt and Mays point prediction enforces a certain level of discipline in making explicit the assumptions, key variables and implied causal relationships that constitute decision-makers beliefs and that might otherwise remain implicit. Imagine, for example, if Shinseki and Wolfowitz had been made to assign probabilities to their opposing expectations regarding post-war Iraq. Not only would they have had to work harder to justify their views, they might have seen more clearly the substantial chance that they were wrong and had to make greater efforts in their planning to prepare for that contingency. Secondly, the very process of making the relevant factors of a decision explicit provides a firm, or at least transparent, basis for making choices. Alternative courses of action can be compared and assessed in like terms. Third, the transparency and discipline of the process of arriving at the initial strategy should heighten the decision-makers sensitivity toward changes in the environment that would suggest the need for adjustments to that strategy. In this way, prediction enhances rather than under-mines strategic flexibility. This defence of prediction does not imply that great stakes should be gambled on narrow, singular predictions of the future. On the contrary, the central problem of uncertainty in plan- ning remains that any given prediction may simply be wrong. Preparations for those eventualities must be made. Indeed, in many cases, relatively unlikely outcomes could be enormously consequential, and therefore merit extensive preparation and investment. In order to navigate this complexity, strategists must return to the dis- tinction between uncertainty and risk. While the complexity of the international security environment may make it somewhat resistant to the type of probabilistic thinking associated with risk, a risk-oriented approach seems to be the only viable model for national-security strategic planning. The alternative approach, which categorically denies prediction, precludes strategy. As Betts argues, Any assumption that some knowledge, whether intuitive or explicitly formalized, provides guidance about what should be done is a presumption that there is reason to believe the choice will produce a satisfactory outcome that is, it is a prediction, however rough it may be. If there is no hope of discerning and manipulating causes to produce intended effects, analysts as well as politicians and generals should all quit and go fishing.36 Unless they are willing to quit and go fishing, then, strategists must sharpen their tools of risk assessment. Risk assessment comes in many varieties, but identification of two key parameters is common to all of them: the consequences of a harmful event or condition; and the likelihood of that harmful event or condition occurring. With no perspective on likelihood, a strategist can have no firm perspective on risk. With no firm perspective on risk, strategists cannot purposefully discriminate among alternative choices. Without purposeful choice, there is no strategy. One of the most widely read books in recent years on the complicated relation- ship between strategy and uncertainty is Peter Schwartzs work on scenario-based planning, The Art of the Long View. Schwartz warns against the hazards faced by leaders who have deterministic habits of mind, or who deny the difficult implications of uncertainty for strategic planning. To overcome such tenden- cies, he advocates the use of alternative future scenarios for the purposes of examining alternative strategies. His view of scenarios is that their goal is not to predict the future, but to sensitise leaders to the highly contingent nature of their decision-making.37 This philosophy has taken root in the strategic-planning processes in the Pentagon and other parts of the US government, and properly so. Examination of alternative futures and the potential effects of surprise on current plans is essential. Appreciation of uncertainty also has a number of organisational impli- cations, many of which the national-security establishment is trying to take to heart, such as encouraging multidisciplinary study and training, enhancing information sharing, rewarding innovation, and placing a premium on speed and versatility. The arguments advanced here seek to take nothing away from these imperatives of planning and operating in an uncertain environment. But appreciation of uncertainty carries hazards of its own. Questioning assumptions is critical, but assumptions must be made in the end. Clausewitzs standard of judgment for discriminating among alternatives must be applied. Creative, unbounded speculation must resolve to choice or else there will be no strategy. Recent history suggests that unchecked scepticism regarding the validity of prediction can marginalise analysis, trade significant cost for ambig- uous benefit, empower parochial interests in decision-making, and undermine flexibility. Accordingly, having fully recognised the need to broaden their strategic-planning aperture, national-security policymakers would do well now to reinvigorate their efforts in the messy but indispensable business of predicting the future.

TraffickingGlobal norms against sales are solidifying now and its decreasing the black market and transplant tourism but its reversible if the US legalizes organ salesCapron, 14 - University Professor and Scott H. Bice Chair in Healthcare Law, Policy, and Ethics, University of Southern California (Alexander, SIX DECADES OF ORGAN DONATION AND THE CHALLENGES THAT SHIFTING THE UNITED STATES TO A MARKET SYSTEM WOULD CREATE AROUND THE WORLD LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS Vol. 77:25)

India was one of about fifty countries that undertook to reform their practices following the approval of WHOs original Guiding Principles. These countries adopted laws in the early 1990s to institute the anticommercial system recommended by WHO. Similarly, a number of countriesincluding several that were centers for organ sales, such as Pakistan and the Philippines, and other countries, such as Israel, that had sent large numbers of transplant tourists abroad to receive vended kidneys40have adopted laws and regulations in the past few years that aim to put the 2010 WHO Guiding Principles into effect.41 These changes have been strongly supported by other intergovernmental bodies such as the United Nations,42 the Council of Europe,43 and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime,44 all of which have addressed the phenomena of organ trafficking45 and of people being trafficked for the removal of the organs.46Equally significant in driving ethical and legal reforms have been the advocacy efforts of leaders in transplantation medicine. For example, the Transplantation Society (TTS) and the International Society of Nephrology organized a global summit on organ trafficking and transplant tourism in Istanbul in late April 2008, where a statement of professional opposition to organ markets, the Declaration of Istanbul, was adopted.47 The Declaration of Istanbul has since been endorsed by more than 120 medical organizations and governmental agencies.48 Realizing that the declaration would not be selfimplementing, its creators formed the Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group (DICG) in 2010 to encourage adherence to its principles and proposals.49 The DICG and TTS have produced some notable results by calling on government officials to adopt and enforce prohibitions, and by making clear to them the harm done to the standing of medical professionals who work in locales where organ sales are widespread.50 Furthermore, the DICGs direct interventions to change professional practices have been even more successful.51 For instance, academic recognition has been withheld from physicians who have carried out transplants with organs from executed prisoners by barring the physicians abstracts from inclusion in international medical congresses.52 Many medical journals have announced that they expect adherence to the Declaration of Istanbul by their authors, just as they have long insisted that research conducted with human beings must adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki, first promulgated by the World Medical Association in 1964.53 In at least one instance, several articles were retracted from an academic journal when it was discovered that the work discussed involved living donors who had been paid to supply a kidney.54C. Recent National Changes in Response to Global NormsBringing about thoroughgoing changes in transplant practices requires more than academic and professional sanctions; governments must also adopt and enforce bans on organ purchases and transplant tourism. The latter has proven particularly difficult, not the least because of the built-in opposition of the people who have profited from catering to transplant tourists. Accordingly, the hard-won gains in this regard that have been achieved in the past five years are all the more remarkable.Some local proponents of organ-trade prohibitions have successfully used global standards in their transformative efforts. This is illustrated by the experiences of Pakistan where the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance was adopted by presidential decree in 2007 before becoming a parliamentary act in 2010.55 Before the ordinance, an estimated 1500 patients from other countriesprincipally in the Middle Eastas well as about 500 wealthy Pakistanis received vended kidneys each year, mainly in private hospitals and clinics in Lahore and other Punjab cities.56 The efforts to bring that practice to an end were lead by the professionals associated with the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), a medical center in Karachi that provides donation-driven kidney dialysis and transplantation to all patients without charge. SIUT supplied the moral entrepreneurs: groups and individuals in civil society who are committed to the elimination of trade they consider harmful and repugnant,57 who mobilized public opposition to commercial organ donation. They urged the government to adopt the new law. Descriptions written by SIUT physicians of the socioeconomic realities of the organ trade58 and of the resulting hazards to both donors and recipients59 led to critical reporting of the practice in newspapers and on television.60The media coverage took specific aim at the role of the government, whose failed poverty-alleviation programs left individuals no choice but to sell their kidneys, and whose failure to enact a transplant law and later to enforce it allowed the organ trade to thrive. It was also noted that reports of Pakistans flourishing kidney market had appeared in the international press, tarnishing the countrys reputation.61The owners of the private hospitals who profited greatly from transplant commercialism and who had strong connections to high-level officials mounted fierce opposition to the transplant bill and sought to water down its prohibitions on unrelated living donation.62 On the other side, SIUTs founder and director, Professor Adib Rizvi, used his strong connections with international medical groups, particularly his membership in the DICG, to counteract these powerful opponents.63 Prominent transplant surgeons among the DICG leadership came to Pakistan to convince government officials that organ sales were a matter of international concern and needed to be curbed to rehabilitate the reputation of Pakistani physicians.64 As Professor Asif Esrat concludes, For government officials, the desire to conform to widely held international norms and redeem the national reputation served as a motivation for action.65 When the law was contested in a federal Shariat court as an interference with the Islamic duty to save life, the existence of the international standards, as embodied in the WHO Guiding Principles (which Pakistan had joined in endorsing at the World Health Assembly), weighed heavily enough that the court rejected the challenge.66 When several transplant programs continued to carry out commercial transplants, including on patients from abroad, Dr. Rizvi and his colleagues reported these violations to the authorities and prosecutions were brought against the surgeons and hospitals that had attempted to profit by breaking the law.67The current situation in the Philippines resembles that in Pakistan in some ways but differs in significant respects. The country has been a well-known locale for organ purchases for the past several decades; indeed, it was one of the first places where the anthropologists of Organs Watch, an independent research and medical-human-rights project at the University of California, Berkeley, began their examination of the new body trade in which the circulation of kidneys follows established routes of capital from South to North, from East to West, from poorer to more affluent bodies, from black and brown bodies to white ones, and from female to male or from poor, low status men to more affluent men.68Although Internet sites have made the Philippines another important locus for the global organ trade, the initial pattern of using vended kidneys there differed from what had occurred in Pakistan because the recipients were mainly wealthy Filipinos, not foreigners. 358 of the 468 kidney transplants recorded in 2003 by the Renal Disease Control Program of the Department of Health in the Philippines involved domestic patients (though the possibility of incomplete reporting by private hospitals cannot be totally discounted).69 It was thus not surprising that elite groups at that time supported a proposal under consideration by the government to institutionalize paid kidney donation as well as to formally accept transplantation for foreign patients.70 As appealing as this idea may have seemed to someone viewing it from a private hospital room in Quezon City, it was much less so for human-rights advocates trying to protect potential organ sellers in a sewage-infested banguay (slum) in Manila.71 These advocates used the attention that the World Health Organization was bringing to the issue at that time to halt the movement toward legalizing compensation.Over the following five years, international pressure on the government intensified, not only from intergovernmental and medical bodies72 but from the Catholic hierarchy, particularly in light of press coverage about unscrupulous organ brokers trolling in the slums for donors to meet the ever-increasing demand for kidneys coming from Manilas transplant tourists.73 On April 30, 2008, a ministerial directive barred foreign recipients from getting kidneys from Filipino living donors.74 The next year, the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking followed the international trend and used the organ trafficking provisions of the Philippines Anti-Human Trafficking Law as the basis for supplemental regulations outlawing all organ purchases, as well as other means of trafficking persons for organ removal, including the use of force, fraud, and taking advantage of vulnerability.75The fragility of these legal changes in the face of the determined opposition is indicated by the next swing of the Filipino organ-policy pendulum. When Benigno Aquino III assumed office as President in June 2010, he nominated as secretary of health Dr. Enrique T. Ona, a transplant surgeon who had previously expressed his opposition to the ban on organ sales.76 The nomination was held up, however, when Ona announced his intention to allow organ donors to be compensated by a $3200 gratuity package77 and joined several American regulated-market advocates in sponsoring an international forum on Incentives for Donation in Manila that November.78 He was confirmed as health minister, however, after providing assurances that he would not institute financial gratuities, but he did sign the proposal for incentives that emerged from the international forum.79 In effect, the pendulum has swung back, as the number of foreign transplant recipients, which had risen to 531 by 2007 before the ban, fell to two by 2011, even as a threefold increase occurred in deceased-donor transplants for Filipinos.80 Movement in the opposite direction remains possible, however, as organ purchases by wealthy Filipinos have not completely disappeared, with brokers helping potential kidney recipients persuade review committees to allow as emotionally related donations what are in fact commercial transactions.81Another variation on the theme of transplant tourism has taken place in Colombia, which was a major provider of deceased-donor organs for wealthy foreigners during the first decade of this century,82 mainly for liver transplantation.83 With strong international and regional backing, local medical leaders succeeded in redirecting organs to recipients from Colombia and neighboring countries. The annual rate of transplantation to foreigners, which stood at 200 in 2005 (16.5% of the national total), was reduced to 10 by 2011 (0.9% of the total, down from 1.45% the prior year).84The situation in Colombia is indicative of the progress that has been made across Latin America with the adoption by the Ibero-American Council of a set of principles and objectives in a regional parallel to the Declaration of Istanbul, the Document of Aguascalientes,85 which was encouraged through a strong alliance with the Spanish transplant program. The Document of Aguascalientes has provided legal and ethical as well as technical guidance for countries across that region as they have created or strengthened their own systems for organ donation, allocation, and transplantation that seek the support of the public and medical professionals and that aim to meet the transplant needs of the domestic population and achieve self-sufficiency nationally or through regional cooperation.86Over the past five years, the most impressive examples of countries that have responded to stronger global norms regarding the opposite side of self-sufficiency namely, not sending transplant tourists abroad as the means to meet domestic demand for organsare in the Middle East. Israels enactment in 2008 of legislation halting insurance coverage for commercial transplants that violate local laws ended its reliance on Turkey, South Africa, China, and the Philippines, among other countries, as sites where Israeli patients could go to obtain vended kidneys.87 The law also stimulated the development of a robust system of deceased and living-related donation, which has been widely praised.88A number of Arab countries have taken stepsthus far less sweeping in scope or impact than the Israeli program but still effectiveto treat patients at home rather than sending them abroad. The evolution of policy in Qatar provides a vivid example of the competing forces at work: expediency, selfinterest, generosity, and concern about adhering to international norms. The local provider of transplant services, the Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC), has concluded that it needs to go beyond the existing Qatari program for honoring donors if it is to achieve self-sufficiency in organ transplantation.89 Consequently, the HMC increased outreach within the expatriate community in Qatar (more than 85% of residents) to ensure that they too have access to transplantation services.90 Additionally, the HMC has substantially increased deceased donation by publicizing that brain death is acceptable under Islam91 and by having prominent persons, such as members of the royal family, not only recognize the generosity of living donors and the families of deceased donors but also enroll in the organ-donor registry.92A central component of the new Qatari program is the Doha Donation Accord,93 which was formulated in November 2009 with assistance from the leaders of the DICG and the International Society for Organ Transplantation, and which came into effect in 2010 following approval by the countrys Supreme Council of Health. The accord aimed to combat organ commercialism, to create a deceased-donor program in which everyonewhether citizen or foreign workerwould participate as both a potential donor and potential recipient, and to provide a path to self-sufficiency in organ transplantation.94 The original accord departed from practices elsewhere in the region by not offering any financial payment to the families of donors,95 but several of its promisesin particular, that a their family member would be offered a free airplane ticket to accompany the deceaseds body from Qatar at the time of donationdo not align with Guiding Principle 5 of the WHO Guiding Principles, which states that [c]ells, tissues and organs should only be donated freely, without any monetary payment or other reward of monetary value.96 To the accords framers, it would have been inco