Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments about organ donation
Joanna MacKay's "Organ Sales Will Save Lives
Arguments about organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments about organ donation
Joanna Mackay is the author of the article “Organs sales will saves lives,” saying that the best way to stop people from dying while on a kidney transplant list, and to help the 350,000+ people with end-stage renal disease, is to throw all morals out the window and take them from the “peasants” (MacKay 158 ) in third world countries. Since the poor are worthless, and only rich matter. Not only does MacKay say that it will help save lives in America, but that it will also better the lives of the poor. MacKay says that in return for taking their kidneys, they will receive a small thing of cash. She takes this to the extreme and says that this will bring the poor out poverty. These assumptions she makes in the article, prove to be a catastrophic flaw in her writing. Mackay makes these faulty statements like the ones used above, saying the poor are worthless and that we should only worry about saving the rich. Another major assumption MacKay makes is that the poor will do anything for cash. These are the flaws that hurts MacKays writing the most, …show more content…
it affects the article in many different forms, it demolishes what could be a good article and idea. The first part of MacKay bashing the poor flaw is that she shows a bias when talking about third world countries.
She does this by putting herself and rich people on a pedestal, showing that they are worth far more than anyone in a third world countries. She demeans the poor by using derogatory terms when she refers to people in third world countries such as “these people.”(158) Implying that they are not even good enough to get a name, showing that they are a waste of MacKay’s time. She uses statements that make you think she has no morals, including that there desperate and would do anything to better their condition, which includes selling a part of their bodies specifically their kidneys and that they should honor her in doing so, kinda like hitler who killed the jews for the “greater good” since they in her mind are just “peasants”(158) MacKay makes it feel like they are bettering the world by taking their
kidneys. While you may be saving someone's life, your not bringing the poor out of poverty. MacKay says “we have a responsibility to protect and help those who are less fortunate.” (158) Taking their kidneys is not the way to do this, while that little bit of money they would get, could give some financial stability for a little bit, it would not be close to the amount needed to bring them out of poverty, it’s just like the saying “if you give a man a fish he is fed for the night, if you teach a man to fish he is fed for a lifetime.” This is another part of her bashing the poor flaw, since it looks like she tries to trick the reader into thinking that this is a win win situation, pretty much saying that the poor need money so bad that we can take their kidneys give them a little bit of cash and call it helping the poor out of poverty. This flaw hurts MacKay as a writer, since no one wants to be associated with someone who calls poor people peasants. They would not also like to be around someone who thinks they are better than other people. The article “Organ sales will saves lives” could hurt her in the long run if she tries to publish another paper. Unfortunately for MacKay she now has a tie to her name and it is not a good one, it is one that is known for not caring about the poor and ties to someone who believes they are better than the people around them. This would hurt her in the long run since she has a tie to her name that is not a good one. Publishers are not going to want to have someone who hates the poor write an article for them, because it could have catshorpic effects on the publisher. This could also hurt a reader, because if you miss the derogatory statements she makes, and you tell someone hey this is a good idea. It’s going to look like you hate the poor as well. In conclusion the article “Organ sales will save lives” the author Joanna MacKay, bashes the poor to a point where no matter what point she is trying to make looks bad. Mackay believes that by taking things from the poor is bettering their lives, when in fact it is just a temporary solution, since MacKay decided to bash the poor, beyond repair. She will forever a tie to her name as someone who does not care about the less fortunate, and believes they are only there to help save rich people's lives.
“Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by Joanna MacKay be an essay that started with a scenario that there are people who died just to buy a kidney, also, thousands of people are dying to sell a kidney. The author stood on her point that governments should therefore stop banning the sale of human organs, she further suggests that it should be regulated. She clearly points that life should be saved and not wasted. Dialysis in no way could possibly heal or make the patient well. Aside from its harshness and being expensive, it could also add stress to the patient. Kidney transplant procedure is the safest way to give hope to this hopelessness. By the improved and reliable machines, transplants can be safe—keeping away from complications. Regulating
Joanna MacKay says in her essay, Organ Sales Will Save Lives, that “Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved.” Many people probably never think about donating organs, other than filling out the paper work for their drivers’ license. A reasonable amount of people check ‘yes’ to donate what’s left of their bodies so others may benefit from it or even be able to save a life. On the other hand, what about selling an organ instead of donating one? In MacKay’s essay, she goes more in depth about selling organs. Honestly, I did not really have an opinion on organ sales, I just knew little about it. Nonetheless, after I studied her essay, I feel like I absolutely agreed with her. She argues that the sale of human organs should be authorized. Some crucial features in an argument consist of a clear and arguable position, necessary background information, and convincing evidence.
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
Richard A. Epstein’s “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” (2005) is an argument trying to convince people that selling human organs is acceptable in order to increase the availability for those in need of an organ transplant. Epstein says money will motivate more people to donate their organs to those in need. He also looks at the argument from the point of the recipient of the organ and argues that the expense of buying an organ will not increase the price of getting an organ transplant.
Specific Purpose: After listening to my speech, my audience will know the history of organ transplants/transplantation and its medical advances over the years.
At the beginning of her argument, Satel claims that the current transplant list systems are ineffective, and are causing a shortage of organs availability, thereby allowing countless patients to suffer. At first, she makes an invali...
...by writing a book about their misery. In this, her Marxist worldview is at odds with her capitalist behavior.
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
Critics of kidney sales argue that impoverished people are more likely to sell their organs than the rich. (Matas, 2004) They claim that the practice of kidney sales is injustice since vulnerable vendors are targeted and that they may suffer from lengthy health problems after the operations which may eventually lead to the loss of jobs. (Bramstedt, 2010)
The uncontainable despair of the weeping and screaming parents entering a room full of body bags containing the altered remains of their children. In a room drained with blood and surrounding fridges for the maintenance of the ejected organs, everything seems miserably surreal(“Children Kidnapped for Their Organs”). This is only one of the discovered cases of the daily dozens of people killed for organ harvestation. Adding up to ten thousand illegal operations in 2012 which translates to hourly sales (Samadi). These abhorrent acts add up as crimes against humanity which are triggered by a numerous amount of reasons; in order to stop these constant atrocities we must uncover the root of the causes.
Do you want to be a superhero in someones life then you should consider being an organ donor. Why would I want to be an organ donor you may ask? Well for one after you die your organs could be used to help someone else live. Wouldn't that be cool, you could help people after you have passed on. You can be a organ donor at any age. You can also be a organ donor while you are still alive. The need is constantly growing for organ donors and it is very simple to be an organ donor when you die. Signing up for organ donation will save more lives. Becoming an organ donor is simple and can save the lives of many individuals needing your help. You have the power to save.
She also appeals to the ethos at the very end of the speech by identifying three separate and conflicting social classes that are based on intelligence and wealth. She describes the first class as being “intelligent and wealthy members of the upper classes who have obtained knowledge of birth control and exercise it in regulating the size of their families.” She then compares the highest class to the mid-level group by saying they too are “equally intelligent and responsible” but can not gain knowledge and therefore can not plan their families. By comparing the first two alone it appeals to ethics as two groups with equal knowledge and wealth should both have knowledge and control over the size of their families. She ties in the last group by saying that the lowest group is “irresponsible and reckless” and states that this group reproducing in large numbers is bad for society as it will spread disease and the increase in size of this “feeble-minded” group.
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).