Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues for organ donation
Debate on organ donation
Ethical issues for organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues for organ donation
Based on The Meat Market, by Alex Tabarrok (607), The Case for Mandatory Organ Donation, by Scott Carney (614), Yes, Let’s Pay for Organs, by Charles Krauthammer (620), and The Surgery Was Simple; the Process Is Another Story, by Virginia Postrel (625). Should we pay for organs? We can solve our problems by paying for organs. By paying for organs, donors are saving lives, and reducing the organ shortage.
First, Donating saves those in need. Anyone can donate, dead or alive. Although donating from the dead helps, if living people were to donate the amount of lives saved would increase. “You don’t have to be dead to give someone a kidney, you just have to be healthy and willing” (Postrel 626). Like donating a kidney, other organs can be donated while alive. After being surgically worked on, our organs are able to function normally. While giving a part of us to a patient in need, we help them gain organ functionality and save their lives. Moreover, the idea of donating is more conceivable for all when given a reasonable amount of compensation. Compensation for donation may sway some (such as the poor), but for those who don’t need money, a larger more reasonable sum should do. “[Paying for organs may] address the rich/poor concern: after all, $3,000 is real money, even for bankers and lawyers” (Krauthammer 621). By addressing both the poor and the rich, more lives are be saved as donors come from both parties, and if the rich donate surely the middle class will donate.
Second, by paying for organs, donors reduce the shortage on organs. People would be inclined to donate if they were being paid. Many problems can be solved by money, and according to Tabarrok, so can the organ shortage, “The Iranian system and the black market dem...
... middle of paper ...
...fe.
Works Cited
Carney, Scott. “The Case for Mandatory Organ Donation.” 2007. Patterns for College Writing: A
Rhetorical Reader and Guide. 12th ed. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 614-17. Print.
Krauthammer, Charles. “Yes, Let's Pay for Organs.” Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical
Reader and Guide. 12th ed. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 620-22. Print.
Postrel, Virginia. “The Surgery Was Simple; the Process Is Another Story.” 2006. Patterns for
College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. 12th ed. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 625-27. Print.
Tabarrok, Alex. “The Meat Market.” 2010. Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and
Guide. 12th ed. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Boston: Bedford, 2012. 607-11. Print.
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.
Shteyngart, Gary. “Sixty-Nine Cent.” Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Eds. Laurie G. Kirszner and Steven R. Mandell. 11th edition. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010 Boston, 102-105. Print.
of the book. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print. The. Madaras, Larry, and James M. Sorelle.
Students with Readings. 7th Ed. Roger Davis, Laura K. Davis, Kay L. Stewart and Chris J. Bullock. Toronto: Pearson, 2013. 234-236. Print.
The Stases and Other Rhetorical Concepts from Introduction to Academic Writing. N.p.: n.p., n.d. PDF.
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
The impact and effectiveness of using proper rhetoric was a strategy of “good” writing that I was not aware of until my senior year of high school. While taking AP Language and Composition my junior year, my fellow students and I believed that we had survived countless essay workshop activities and writing assignments with emphasis on word choices, grammatical structure, syntax, punctuation and spelling. By the time we had entered AP Literature our senior year, we felt we could achieve success; we already knew how to write in the correct format and structur...
McNeil, Hayden. The Anteater's Guide to Writing & Rhetoric. Irvine: Composition Program, Department of English, UC Irvine, 2014. Print.
11th ed. By Kelly J. Mays. New York: W W Norton &, 2013. 551-57. Print.
Student's Book of College English: Rhetoric, Reader, Research Guide and Handbook. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2012. 402-405.
A transplanted kidney can last a person their whole lifetime yet in the greatest country of the world, the government bans the selling of organs. This leads to thousands of citizens desperate to find a cure for themselves or a loved one. A solution to reduce our supply and demand gap would be to pay our donors. By paying our donors, this would increase the supply of kidneys tremendously. People living in extreme poverty are willing to put so much on the line for money. People in third world countries are accepting as little as $1,000 for a kidney just so they can supply their family with some food and necessities. This black market of organ trading needs to be stopped but we should not ask a patient to accept death easily. If organ sales did become legalized it would need to be highly regulated. Some people in less fortunate countries are only left to sell their organs on the black market. Why not build a regulated system that compensates people fairly and provides them with safety? As unpleasant as it seems to commodify organs, the current situation is simply too tragic not to change something. If coordinated properly, it could simultaneously satisfy the needs of wealthy countries with long waiting lists and poorer countries with overwhelming poverty. In the 1990s, after years of war and economic slumps, the country, Iran decided to compensate donors by paying them for
Organ donations are crucial for people in emergency situations. For years organ donations have saved the lives of millions. The problem with people needing organs is that there are not enough organs to be supplied to everyone who needs it. There are many people who die because they are not able to obtain lifesaving organs. The need for organs exceeds the supply given. Thus, leading me to ask this essential question, “Should organ donation be a part of the market?” To support this question I have prepared three supportive claims, but since my answer is no my reasons will revolve around this argument. First, I will state why I do not agree with such a thing, and then I will support my claim by stating why it is so bad, and to end my paper I will state what place(s) legalizes trade.
People in support of organ transplantation argue the cost/benefit ration and have determined their arguing points to be these: Social Responsibility, Improves the Quality of Life, alleviation of familial grief, encourages hope to live, lessens the cost of patient care, improves research and research methods. The opposing side offers an alternative view, offering these augment points: Risk of complication during and after surgery, degradation of health in the long run, adverse physiological effect on donor’s family, financial burden, objections based on religious belief, unethical trade and harvesting of human organs, and finally, the donor has no rights to choose the recipient.
Although it seems that majority of the problems associated with organ donation are due to the physical lack or organs, there is another contributing factor. Even if there were an unlimited amount of organs available for transplantation, many uninsured and poor patients still couldn 't receive their transplant. These groups of people do not have equal access to post-transplant immunosuppressive medications. These medications are very expensive, so therefore the wealthy and well-insured do have an advantage on the national waiting list, just because they can afford these medications (AMA, 20017). Without having these immunosuppressants, an equal opportunity to live is not guaranteed, even though a patient may receive the new organ. Although seemingly fair and equal, when looked at through the lense of a conflict theorist, organ donation has many problems and