Being vegetarian helps the environment  Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation  At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1]  The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2]  As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1.  The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6]  With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat.  [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center  [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 .  [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009.  [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997.  [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003  [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004


It is immoral to kill animals  As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.  Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.  [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008  [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989


Vegetarianism is healthier  There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron.  [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009


Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning  Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1]  Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.  [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009


There are problems with being vegetarian  A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.  [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,


Survival of the fittest  It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org


Humans can choose their own nutrition plan  Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.


Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved  The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth.  It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.


It would send out a consistent message  Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?


Animals shouldn’t be harmed  The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”.  We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us.  If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]


It isn’t necessary  We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful.  The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]


Most animals can suffer more than some people  It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities.  We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]


People will die if we don’t do animal testing  Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying


Research animals are well treated  Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild.  As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.


Animal research is only used when it’s needed  EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.


Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.


Animals don’t have human rights  Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]


Poaching is becoming more advanced  A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals.  [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’  [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’  [3] ibid


The justice system does not currently work  A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2]  [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’


Natural habitats being are destroyed  A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] .  [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”  [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”


Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries  Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented.  [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’  [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’


Poaching is linked to terrorism  Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa.  [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’


Fewer human deaths  Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’  [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’


Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching  Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves.  Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers.  [1] Forsyth, C. & Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162  [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”


Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective  Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3]  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Player, I. & Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’  [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’


African countries have little money to spare  Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit.  [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’  [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’


Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe  Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1]  The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example.  Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly. [1]  As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders. [2]  Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions.  [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010   [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.   [I1] I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste.  One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.


Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary  Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with.  Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation.  The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue.  As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. [1]  [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.


There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage  France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. [1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. [2]  As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation.  [1] BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,   [2] Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.


Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.  There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source. [1]  The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required. [2]  [1] Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS,   [2] Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,


Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.  Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible.  Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently.  This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety. [1]  [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010


Developing world  Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, "China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change.  1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.


450 PPM  The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm.  1. IPCC (2007). "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.  2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).


Failure to reach global accord  The Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless.  1. The Economist, 'A bad climate for development', 17th September 2009.


Consequences of increased GHGs  Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:  -glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1.  -the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually.  -there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption.  These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2.  1. Connor, Steve, 'Exclusive: The methane time bomb', The Independent, 23rd September 2008,  2. Wikipedia, "Climate Change Feedback". Retrieved 2011-08-08.


Earth's Resiliency  All the conclusions about the effects of rising atmospheric GHGs are based on computerized climate models. Even those that develop and use the models admit that the models are not nearly complex enough to be 100% accurate. Climate science is incredibly complicated and different models sometimes produce vastly different results 1.Increased carbon dioxide will increase plant life which may mitigate other damages of climate change and protect species currently considered threatened by climate change. Therefore, it is far too early to conclude that humanity is going to be destroyed. The earth's climate is continuously changing, with or without anthropogenic effects, and life has always found a way to continue.  1. Lemonick, Michael D., 'How much can we really trust climate models to tell us about the future?', 18th january 2011.


New Technology  Humanity has revolutionized the world repeatedly through such monumental inventions as agriculture, steel, anti-biotics, and microchips. And as technology has improved, so too has the rate at which technology improves. It is predicted that there will be 32 times more change between 2000 and 2050 than there was between 1950 and 2000. In the midst of this, many great minds will be focussed on emissions abatement and climate control technologies. So, even if the most severe climate predictions do come to pass, it is unimaginable that humanity will not find a way to intervene. Even small changes will make a difference – more efficient coal power stations can emit a third less emissions than less efficient ones 1. Renewable energy will become more competitive and scalable and technology develops we may even be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere so undoing the damage. 1  1. Bradsher, Keith. “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.”, New York Times Published: May 10, 2009.


Carbon Trading Schemes  The EU ETS is an example of a viable carbon market, it covers thirty countries from the EU as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Countries within the ETS are using market mechanisms to force domestic emitters to meet national caps as the amount of allowances reduces over time emissions fall. In 2020 under the ETS emissions will be 21% lower than in 2005 1. The IPCC report contains recommendations for how emissions can be abated through the simultaneous application of numerous small reductions and the implementation of abatement technologies and this is exactly what schemes like the ETS encourage. Part of the reason that the ETS is successful is that it is ensuring an even playing field between countries by (more or less) applying its rules equally across borders and industries.2  1. European Trading System, 2010  2. European Commission Climate Action, 'Emissions Trading System'


An immense boost to DRC’s economy  The Grand Inga dam would be an immense boost to the DRC’s economy. It would mean a huge amount of investment coming into the country as almost all the $80 billion construction cost would be coming from outside the country which would mean thousands of workers employed and spending money in the DRC as well as boosting local suppliers. Once the project is complete the dam will provide cheap electricity so making industry more competitive and providing electricity to homes. Even the initial stages through Inga III are expected to provide electricity for 25,000 households in Kinshasa. [1]  [1] ‘Movement on the Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 20 November 2013,


The dam would power Africa  Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4]  [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010,  p.89  [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013,   [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013,   [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,


Will enable the rebuilding of DRC  DR Congo has been one of the most war ravaged countries in the world over the last two decades. The Grand Inga provides a project that can potentially benefit everyone in the country by providing cheap electricity and an economic boost. It will also provide large export earnings; to take an comparatively local example Ethiopia earns $1.5million per month exporting 60MW to Djibouti at 7 cents per KwH [1] comparable to prices in South Africa [2] so if Congo were to be exporting 500 times that (at 30,000 MW only 3/4ths of the capacity) it would be earning $9billion per year. This then will provide more money to invest and to ameliorate problems. The project can therefore be a project for the nation to rally around helping create and keep stability after the surrender of the rebel group M23 in October 2013.  [1] Woldegebriel, E.G., ‘Ethiopia plans to power East Africa with hydro’, trust.org, 29 January 2013,   [2] Burkhardt, Paul, ‘Eskom to Raise S. Africa Power Price 8% Annually for 5 Years’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2013,


A dam could make the Congo more usable  While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.


A dam would damage the environment  Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1]  [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,


The cost is too high  The Grand Inga is ‘pie in the sky’ as the cost is too immense. At more than $50-100 billion it is more than twice the GDP of the whole country. [1] Even the much smaller Inga III project has been plagued by funding problems with Westcor pulling out of the project in 2009. [2] This much smaller project still does not have all the financial backing it needs having failed to get firm commitments of investment from anyone except the South Africans. [3] If private companies won’t take the risk on a much smaller project they won’t on the Grand Inga.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,   [2] ‘Westcor Drops Grand Inga III Project’, Alternative Energy Africa, 14 August 2009,   [3] ‘DRC still looking for Inga III funding’, ESI-Africa.com, 13 September 2013,


Dams displace communities  Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around?  [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,


Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity  The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3]  [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012,   [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013,   [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,


Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor  The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)


A Practical Solution  There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.


Organ donors are more deserving of organs  Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.


People ought to donate their organs anyway  Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.


This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo  Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.


People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs  Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.


Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.  For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.


The right to access healthcare is absolute  Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death. The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}. While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated. What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent. The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t. To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government.


If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong  If birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.


The foetus feels pain  Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child.  [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,


Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption  Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable.  [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,


Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards  here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003. [1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic; [2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise.  [1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011,   [2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998,


Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general  Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.


Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative  The D&X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves.  [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’,


The concept of "foetal rights" is an attack on the autonomy of women  The culture of foetal rights reflects a dangerous litigious trend in American society, and implies a view of pregnant women as being nothing more than baby-carrying machines whose independence and autonomy should be restricted and whose motivations should be questioned at every turn. If this has implications for the abortion debate, then those implications are profoundly damaging to women in general. In any case, the mother of a wanted baby has entirely different responsibilities toward the unborn foetus from the mother of an unwanted baby - that’s why our society allows both abortions and antenatal classes.


It’s in the interests of employees  It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV [1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee.  [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice,


It’s in the interests of employers  It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively.  [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,


It’s in the interests of co-workers  It’s in the interests of other workers. The possibility of transmission, while very unlikely, is real and one they have a right to know about so as to be able to guard against it. While most of the time it will not be problem as transmission requires a transfer of bodily fluids this may occasionally happen in a workplace. [1] This is particularly true of healthworkers (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives, paramedics, etc) who should have both a moral and a legal obligation to disclose if they are HIV-positive. Even outside the medical field industrial accidents may expose employees to risk. Employers have a duty to protect their workforce.  [1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘HIV Transmission’, Department of Health and Human Services,


Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone  Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.


The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high  This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination. [1] The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission.  In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely.  [1] Pebody, 2009


It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place  The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.


Employers have no right to private medical information  Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them.  If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ).  Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy.  [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,


Savings can be used in other sections of medical care  The decreased cost of pharmaceuticals allows African states to focus on other aspects of medical schemes. Pharmaceuticals are not the only aspect in treatment, there needs to be sufficient staff, medical equipment and infrastructure [1] . These requirements cost money, which the savings made on pharmaceuticals provide. In Europe, 50% of dispensed medicines are generic yet they cost only 18% of pharmaceutical expenditure, with a similar model predicted for South Africa. This allows the state to focus on other aspects of medical schemes [2] .  [1] Ibid  [2] Health24, ‘South Africans embrace generic meds’


Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access  Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor [1] . This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82 [2] . Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa.  [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’  [2] Op Cit


Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs  The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places.  [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’  [2] Ibid


Unfair to apply same patent laws universally  It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices.  [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’


Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers  The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies [1] . These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted [2] .  [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’  [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’


Most vital drugs are already generic  Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent.  [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’  [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013


Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries  The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents [1] . This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease [2] .  [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’  [2] ibid


Reduce smoking  A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal.  The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated 1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000.  1 Daily Mail Reporter, “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2008,


Nip the problem in the bud  Smoking rates in Africa are relatively low; a range of 8%-27% with an average of only 18% of the population smoking 1 (or, the tobacco epidemic is at an early stage 2 ). That’s good, but the challenge is to keep it that way and reduce it.  A ban on smoking in public places at this stage would stop tobacco gaining the widespread social acceptability that caused it to thrice in the 20th century in the Global North. The solution is to get the solutions in now, not later.  1 Kaloko, Mustapha, 'The Impact of Tobacco Use on Health and Socio-Economic Development in Africa', African Union Commission, 2013,  , p.4  2 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “What we do: Tobacco control strategy overview”, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, no date,


Lower healthcare costs  Smoking caused disease causes large expenses for healthcare systems, something which is particularly burdensome in countries without the rich well developed healthcare systems of the developed world. In the UK lung cancer, one of the diseases caused by smoking, costs £90 per person or £9071 per patient. 1 Even the cost per head of population is higher than Ghana’s entire healthcare budget of $83.4 (about £50) per person. 2  The reduction in smoking, which would be triggered by the ban, would lead to a drop in smoking related illness. A study in the US state of Arizona showed that hospital admissions for smoking related diseases dropped after a ban on smoking in public places 3 .  This would allow resources to be focused on the big killers other than tobacco – including HIV AIDS.  1 The National Cancer Research Institute, ‘Lung cancer UK price tag eclipses the cost of any other cancer’, Cancer Research UK, 7 November 2012,   2 Assuming Ghanaian health spending of 5.2% of GDP which is $40.71 billion split between a population of 25.37 million from World Bank Databank    3 Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban”, American Journal of Public Health, March 2011,


Easy to introduce  A ban on smoking in public places would be simple to enforce – it is an obvious activity, and does not require any form of complex equipment or other special techniques . It would largely be enforced by other users of public places and those working there. If it changes attitudes enough, it could be largely self-enforcing – by changing attitudes and creating peer pressure 1 .  1 See Hartocollis, Anemona, “Why Citizens (gasp) are the smoking police), New York Times, 16 September 2010,


Reduces growth of tobacco  Less people smoking means less tobacco being purchased – something that would contribute to the reduction in the tobacco industry. The industry is known for its exploitative labour practices, from child labour (80,000 children in Malawi work in tobacco farming, can result in nicotine poisoning – 90% of what is grown is sold to American Big Tobacco 1 ) to extortionate loans. 2 Reducing the size of such an industry can only be a good thing.  1 Palitza, Kristin, “Child labour: tobacco’s smoking gun”, The Guardian, 14 September 2011,   2 Action on Smoking and Health, p3


Unenforceable  Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin 1 and New York City 2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either.  Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned. 3  1 AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008,   2 Huff Post New York, 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011,   3 Kaloko, Mustapha, 2013,  , p.18


Pack labelling or taxation a better alternative  If it’s not enforceable, enforceable solutions ought to be used instead. It would be easier to enforce pack labelling and branding requirements, from larger and clearer health warnings to even brand-free packs. Of course, American-style lawsuits by governments against tobacco manufacturers could be tried, as suggested in Nigeria 1 .  1 IRIN, “NIGERIA: Govt hits tobacco companies with whopping law suit”, irinnews.org, 9 November 2007,


Ban would harm the wider economy  A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in 1 . Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent. 2  1 BBC News, “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs”, BBC News, 2011,   2 Pakko, Michael R., 'Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans', The Regional Economist, January 2008,


Paternalistic  Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.


Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes.  Schools are playing an increasingly formative role, in the sense that they’re being tasked with not only knowledge transfer, but also the creation of behaviors and placing emphasis on teaching students how to apply their knowledge. [1]  Given this expanded mandate, the schools are not only obliged to therefore offer choices that would go hand in hand with healthier behavior, but also the perfect pressure point for lawmakers to go about introducing healthier lifestyles.  The simple reason is that our kids are increasingly looking not to their parents, but schools and the environments they provide, for advice on how to live their lives. They are also the traditional environments for youth to continuously invent and reinvent themselves and therefore hold immense potential for behavior modification.  [1] Fitzgerald, E., 'Some insights on new role of schools', New York Times, 21 January 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011


Schools need to practice what they preach  Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias. [1]  Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago [2] . School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home [3] .  While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up [4] , revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher. [5]  With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic [6] , especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class.  [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004,  , accessed 09/08/2011  [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007  , accessed 09/08/2011  [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009,  , accessed 9/11/2011


Better nutrition leads to better students.  There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance. [1] A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average. [2]  This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status.  The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students. [3]  [1] CDC, 'Student Health and Academic Achievement', 19 October 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Too much fast food ‘harms children’s test scores’’, The Telegraph, 22 May 2009,  accessed 20 September 2011  [3] Society for the Advancement of Education, 'Overweight students cost schools plenty', December 2004,  , 9/11/2011


Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy.  Schools may seem like a perfect place to effect behavioral change in youth, since 95% of young people are enrolled in schools. [1]  But what researchers find is that changing the choices we have available does not necessarily lead to any behavioral change. Penny Gordon-Larsen, one of the researchers, wrote: "Our findings suggest that no single approach, such as just having access to fresh fruits and veggies, might be effective in changing the way people eat. We really need to look at numerous ways of changing diet behaviors. There are likely more effective ways to influence what people eat.” [2]  In the case of school children is this point seems particularly salient. Given that high school students in the US average only 6 hours in school [3] and the widespread availability of fast and other forms of “junk food”, we can hardly expect that impacting this single environment of the school will lead to any lasting behavioral changes. Realistically, what we can expect is for school children to go outside the school to find their favorite snacks and dishes.  Even if, by some miracle, the ban would change the behavior of children in schools, there is still the matter of 10 hours (the ATUS suggests kids sleep an average of 8 hours per day) they will spend outside schools, where their meal choices will not be as tailored and limited.  [1] Wechsler, H., et al., 'The Role of Schools in Preventing Childhood Obesity', National Association of State Boards of Education, December 2004,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Nordqvist, C., 'No Single Approach Will Solve America's Obesity Epidemic', Medical News Today, 11 June 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [3] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'American Time Use Survey', 22 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011


Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools.  Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means.  Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision.  Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours.  When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1]  It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets.  [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011


“Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools.  An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got us to the place where we are at today.  With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools’ performance on standardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their very limited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other activities. [1]  Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase their discretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD, which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. The almost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional uses such as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs and field trips.  Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrably detrimental to schools and by extension their pupils.  [1] Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children’s Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005,  , accessed 9/11/2011


Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.  Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it.  The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition.  We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.  What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.  They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.


The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life  It is not fair to ask of a parent to live with the guilt of having been able to save their child and not doing so. Believing that they are guilty of their child’s death can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of suicides. [1]  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.


Greater awareness will increase donations  There is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years. [1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012. [2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death. Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved.  [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,   [2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013,


It is a natural thing to do  We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.


The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.


We should preserve the person with greater quality of life  We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2]  Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.  [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48.  [3] ibid


The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another  In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.


Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide  It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1]  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).


The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide  The purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person [1] .  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).


This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others  By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens.  Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living


Self-preservation is our primary moral duty  Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.


Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world  Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering.  1 United Nations. 2006. "Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. "Patent Wrongs". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'". The Guardian. Available: