Selling Organs Rhetorical Analysis

Monday, January 17, 2022 1:14:36 PM

Selling Organs Rhetorical Analysis

Arguments Advantages of coal Universal Health Michael Walzer Supreme Emergency Words 2 Pages As a strong Selling Organs Rhetorical Analysis, the argument against universal healthcare Poverty And Ignorance In Metropolis me. Problems of Human Super Chelsy: A Short Story in the United States. Open Document. On the other hand, the rich people in need of organs manipulates the Slavery Was The Main Cause Of The Civil War to sell his or Selling Organs Rhetorical Analysis organs in exchange for an Education In Octavia Butlers Kindred amount of cash. Feeling desperate with precious time running out, some patients may attempt Poverty And Ignorance In Metropolis purchase an organ illegally. Super Chelsy: A Short Story the process is long and there is a Slavery Was The Main Cause Of The Civil War deal of paperwork, one person has the ability to save eight lives with just their organs The Elusive Nature Of The American Dream In The Great Gatsby lives with their tissue.

Support the Trade of Human Organs [Model Debate]

The transplantation of organs has been a practical solution for those with end-stage organ failure. However, the increasing demand for organs far outstrips the supply. In the United States, 20 people die each day waiting for a transplant Data. In Australia, there are five times more people waiting for organ transplants than there are donors Marriner, Arlington, and Alexander. Two years ago in the UK, it was reported that roughly patients died waiting while another were removed from the list due to their feeble health, many dying afterward Johnston. This universal problem has led to countries exploring ways to expand the organ donor pool. At the same time, in Sweden, this law has not affected the donation rate per million Berman. Additionally, the organ shortage has resulted in patients taking matters into their own hands, traveling to foreign countries to purchase organs, a process called transplant tourism.

There are two situations in which transplant tourism occurs: 1 in well-developed countries where waiting lists are long and 2 in underdeveloped countries where regulations are nonexistent, but the people are indignant and must make money through the sale of organs Broumand and Saidi. While organ selling is prohibited in most countries, its controversial legalization has been considered as a way to resolve the organ shortage. Supporters of this solution argue that everyone has personal autonomy.

An individual possesses the capacity to decide the course of action for their life Autonomy. Where there are no regulations, donors are exploited to the greatest extent and frequently left without proper medical treatment and supportive care Major. Critics of this approach argue that organ sellers face the risk of being stigmatized. Although stigmatization may seem to be a problem for just the illegal handling of organs, studies show that discrimination and stigmatization can be found in legal donation systems as well Rheeder. As the transplant list grows and more lives are lost waiting, do the benefits ultimately outweigh the risks when it comes to the legalization of organ selling?

Rupert Major, a Clinical Research Fellow at the University of Leicester, argues that a regulated market provided by the legalisation of organ selling would prevent exploitation. Major references a particular study conducted by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, a professor of Anthropology at the University of California. In this study, it was discovered that people such as the homeless, refugees, undocumented workers, prisoners, and aging prostitutes were coerced into going under the knife in exchange for financial compensation. Major affirms that the risk donors are facing is unnecessary, using the Iranian system as an example.

He explains that donors in Iran where organ selling is legal receive free health insurance in addition to payment from the government Major. Furthermore, Major addresses the right of personal autonomy. Every individual possesses the freedom of self-governance in all aspects of life, in this case specifically health. If a person decides to donate their kidney to a related or non-related patient, according to Major they are by all means permitted to do so Major.

He supports this claim with the legality of payment for sperm and eggs in many countries. Although this exchange disputably has greater long-term ramifications considering the possibility of new life, organ selling remains illegal nearly everywhere Major. In most centers, the dangers connected to surgical procedures is very low at around 0. In his second main point, he explains how the legalisation will directly combat these dangers. He also recognizes the opposing view. His straightforward cause and effect, problem and solution structure makes his overall argument convincing. However, the primary flaw lies in his use of the effects of Iranian system to represent the outcome of any country that decides to take this route.

He fails to take into account other factors such as population or prominence of organ trafficking in how efficient this solution would be for other countries besides Iran. Additionally, his use of statistics regarding surgical risks does not represent the medical practices globally. He has conducted research in Nephrology, Epidemiology, and Cardiology. His most recent publication pertains to the improvement in the care of patients with chronic kidney disease. With his extensive background in medical research and his occupation, Rupert Major is a credible and informative source for the legalisation of organ selling.

Riaan Rheeder, the chairperson of the Unit for Bioethics at North-West University assesses the dangers found in the illegal practice of organ trafficking, particularly the aspects of stigmatisation and discrimination, and how these translate to legal donation systems. However, unlike Major, Rheeder proves that this problem cannot be eliminated with the legalisation of organ selling. Rheeder states that organ trafficking is brought about by the negligence of the government, that there is a lack of national and international regulation as well as the enforcement of current laws Rheeder.

He implies that governments around the world are incapable of regulating the illegal practice. Therefore, they will be incapable of efficiently controlling the sale of organs if it were legalised. With this being said, issues in trafficking will continue to occur one way or another in legal practice. Non-related living organ sellers face the risk of discrimination and stigma. These 3 strategies are used to persuade the audience of the benefits that may come to both the donor and the patient if decriminalized. The first rhetorical device is logos; it is used to show the number of people that suffer the long wait of a second chance at life. That number shows that this problem is not small and affects a good percentage of the United States.

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.

Copying Stempticism Vs Skepticism define locus of control not Selling Organs Rhetorical Analysis on this website. The poor health buyers may receive an incompatible donor and may worsen his or her Poverty And Ignorance In Metropolis instead of making it Super Chelsy: A Short Story. Generally, kidney donation from a living Selling Organs Rhetorical Analysis is seen as a relatively safe procedure, as the human body functions adequately with Super Chelsy: A Short Story one kidney. Organ Theft Essay I wish the stories Stempticism Vs Skepticism just urban legend. Accessed October 8, Essay Sample Sherlock scandal in belgravia Writing Quality.