Summary Of Organ Sales Will Save Lives By Joanna Mackay
While reading the Organ Sales Will Save Lives article by Joanna MacKay the main claim I felt would have to be in the beginning of the first paragraph where she stated that “governments should not ban the sale of human organs; they should regulate it. Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved”. This part basically explains what the problem is that she is trying to get an answer to which is that more people should be saved from consistently dying because of kidney problems and the government should reconsider the banishment of the sales of human organs. The sub-claim that supports the main claim would be when she refers to the 350,000 people that suffer from the ending stage of the renal disease which causes the organs to stop functioning
altogether. Kidney failure is one of the hardest possible diseases to get over and the only possible treatments are dialysis and kidney transplantation. She gives us information to support her reasoning as to why she feels that we should be allowed to continue to sell organs.The part of the article that I became very confused with would have to be when she began to speak about the different issues about trading in third world countries and how she begins to go in depth about the poor and their issues with money and finding resources to get what they need. The part where she speaks about The Lancet and “If the rich are free to engage in dangerous sports for pleasure, or dangerous jobs for high pay, it is difficult to see why the poor who take the lesser risk of kidney selling for greater rewards… should be thought so misguided as to need saving from themselves.” That entire statement is confusing and hard for me to even begin what she is trying to say and whether she is trying to place this as a positive argument or negative argument which side she is actually on. The strongest element to this article comes from the final paragraph of the story and states that it will be beneficial to Americans to have the ability to sell organs because it is beneficial to both sides. People who are less fortunate and who have no other choice will be able to gain funds that they need to survive and others will be able to live their lives because they have the resources and ability to gain a new kidney. She makes it very clear that is more than morality and it should be reconsidered because it is no need to kill thousands unnecessarily when they can simple legalize and regulate the sale of human organs.
altogether. Kidney failure is one of the hardest possible diseases to get over and the only possible treatments are dialysis and kidney transplantation. She gives us information to support her reasoning as to why she feels that we should be allowed to continue to sell organs.The part of the article that I became very confused with would have to be when she began to speak about the different issues about trading in third world countries and how she begins to go in depth about the poor and their issues with money and finding resources to get what they need. The part where she speaks about The Lancet and “If the rich are free to engage in dangerous sports for pleasure, or dangerous jobs for high pay, it is difficult to see why the poor who take the lesser risk of kidney selling for greater rewards… should be thought so misguided as to need saving from themselves.” That entire statement is confusing and hard for me to even begin what she is trying to say and whether she is trying to place this as a positive argument or negative argument which side she is actually on. The strongest element to this article comes from the final paragraph of the story and states that it will be beneficial to Americans to have the ability to sell organs because it is beneficial to both sides. People who are less fortunate and who have no other choice will be able to gain funds that they need to survive and others will be able to live their lives because they have the resources and ability to gain a new kidney. She makes it very clear that is more than morality and it should be reconsidered because it is no need to kill thousands unnecessarily when they can simple legalize and regulate the sale of human organs.