Analysis Of Stripped For Parts By Jennifer Khan

Thesis Statement: Becoming an organ donor after death is not only an important decision for yourself, but it is also an important decision for the life that you may have the power to save.

“Altruism is the sole legitimate impulse behind organ donation” (…..), the onetime best U.S best seller further argued that altruistic acts are important qualities of human relationships in a society. Satel carefully cleared doubts of the notion that compensating donors will commodify the body and dehumanize us, she believes that its better to legalize organ donation than allow people suffer and die.

Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from

For the most part, I agree with the author’s claims. Satel gives many reasons for why it is important to reward organ donors, and even goes into the

This personification of the body is morbid yet effective in reminding the reader that the cadaver was once more than the sum of its parts. Kahn clearly connects the organ to its source, in stark contrast to most discussions of organ donation in which the organ simply appears, as Kahn puts it, “as though one had been hidden behind a tree or misplaced along with the car keys” (123). Kahn’s essay would be effective communicating the brutality of the procedure if she had written the paper as a purely informative piece. At several different points in the essay, Kahn interjects her own thoughts, opinions, and impressions on portions of the text that were otherwise purely statements of facts. In one particular section in which she compares the invasive nature of the procedure to other increasingly more modern and non-invasive procedures, Kahn describes organ transplant as “unbelievable and, to me, somehow barbaric” as well as "crudely mechanical, even medieval” (124).

The author is talking to the country as a whole, the ban on paying for organs has been pronounced. They point out even if you were allowed to sell orangs for a price you might have poor people just giving up an organ for money, yet you could to an exchange like a break on taxes or maybe a little college money. Then have a long waiting period just to make sure the person is physically and mentally sound. Then after the procedure have continued checkups. Some might say it’s not ethical is should be out of the goodness of your heart not your pocket. But what the alternative watching people die, or the number of rich people obtaining organs illegally, we can save it.

The article in The Atlantic, by Tiffanie Wen,2 was an eye opener for me because I did not fully understand the implications of our laxity, skepticism, superstitions and lack of aggressive promotions in donating organs. In fact, media seems to contribute to this fallacy as mentioned in the article about the medical mistrust brought on by avid viewers of the medical drama, “Grey’s Anatomy”. This only proves that if the media has such a profound effect on viewers then why not create fiction based on fact and change the mindset of viewers.

With the rapid development of science and technology, When people's organs fail, doctors will use organ transplants to replace end-stage organ failure with special treatment to help patients get rid of death. Typically，some countries use organ donation to help people to get a healthy body. However, according to the article written by Mark J. Cherry, “The shortage of organs is virtually a universal problem.” (Cherry, 2005) . Hence, a small number of human organs donations cannot meet the growing demand and a phenomenon that leads to the sale and sale of organs in society. Furthermore, Cherry said that “the purchase and sale of transplant organs from live donors are prohibited in many countries.” (Cherry, 2005). There are three main reasons the

ORGAN DONATION General purpose: To persuade my audience. Specific purpose: To persuade my audience to donate their organs after they die. Introduction Attention Getter: According to transplants.org each one of us can save up to 8 lives and improve the lives of more than 50 people by donating organs and tissues.

To begin, for many years organ donation has been an act of incredible generosity and the gifting of a life, as summarized in Sally Satel’s article “When Altruism Isn’t Moral” (226). The idea that someone would commit themselves to selflessly donating a organ to a patient, that in some cases the donor has no prior affiliation with the patient, may be heartwarming, but the method of helping those in need is becoming seamlessly more inadequate based on the rising death rate every year. Satel also goes on to state in her article the following:

Blair and Kaserman, throughout the whole article, are trying to persuade those interested to adopt a new policy. As it blatantly states in the title of the article, they also discuss the economical and ethical dilemmas that are causing the shortage in organ harvesting and exploring new ways to stop the shortage. Following those dilemmas, they discuss the arguments that people typically have against a market based system of collecting organs and what they have against reassignment property rights.

A huge argument against the buying and selling of organs is a flaw inherent in any market – the rich have more money, and the poor have less. Therefore, it would be much easier for a wealthy individual to obtain an organ, while a poor person may be left waiting in desperation, with no money to purchase this incredibly necessary item. Organs would undoubtedly be very expensive, and to state the obvious, it is much

The above scenario is just one of many that occurs every single day in this world, in all walks of life. Whether one has already chosen to become an organ donor or has reservations about donating tissues and organs, it can be a sensitive subject to many. There are many legitimate fears and myths behind organ donation and the recovery of organs – anywhere from those that believe it is against their religion to the actual process itself, discussed as follows.

On average, organs can be preserved for no longer than twelve hours outside of the body (“TransWeb.org”). With the lack of registered donors, it becomes difficult for a patient on the waiting list to receive an organ in time if their proximity to the needed organ and an organ transplant hospital is not in range of convenience. Most donors whose death’s occur by chance or accident, can not be preserved efficiently, meaning the organ will become of no use. Advocating the importance of organ donations will increase the chances for patients to receive the organ that will lengthen their

Therefore, people from all around the world are being asked one question, “if you had the chance to donation an organ when you were medically pronounced ‘dead’, would you?” For some this is an easy decision, giving away something that you no longer need for the purpose of providing the recipient with life. For others this becomes an ethical issue, where the heart is considered to be a physical representation of the soul and not a commodity to be given away (Ehtuish, N.D).