Barry Schwartz Unnatural Selection Article Analysis

When it comes to food in today's day and age it correlates with being convenient, fast, and budgeting because people are usually on the go. Generally, people are used to a grab and go routine between work, school, and a family life. Government regulations such as the FDA and other laws given to factories and supermarkets are being trusted to keep the population safe from any food dangerous; therefore, people don’t do their own research on the foods they’re serving. Authors Pollan and Schlosser in Food Matters, allows individuals to analyze and think about the intake of foods used in their daily life. Pollan shares some rules to be considered when shopping for foods in the supermarket. If people read in detail the theories and information given

'Proponents of financial incentives for organ donation assert that a demonstration project is necessary to confirm or refute the types of concerns mentioned above. The American Medical Association, the United Network for Organ Sharing and the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons have called for pilot studies of financial incentives. Conversely, the National Kidney Foundation maintains that it would not be feasible to design a pilot project that would definitively demonstrate the efficacy of financial incentives for organ donation. Moreover, the implementation of a pilot project would have the same corrosive effect on the ethical, moral and social fabric of this country that a formal change in policy would have. Finally, a demonstration project is objectionable because it will be difficult to revert to an altruistic system once payment is initiated, even if it becomes evident that financial incentives don 't have a positive impact on organ donation. '(http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03)

Joy Victory 's "Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich" provides great factual evidence to support her main claim that the rich have more advantages for acquiring an organ than do the poor and uninsured. The extensive factual evidence includes a personal account of an uninsured organ candidate, statistics and multiple expert testimonies to indicate that many variables hinder the poor and uninsured from receiving an organ. One of the most important variables is the socio-economic status of the potential organ recipient because statistics and evidence indicate receiving organs is determined primarily on a financial basis. Also, the article suggests the uninsured and poor not only suffer from physical ailments but also from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. One of the ways Victory uses factual evidence is by narrating a personal account of an uninsured 34- year-old who is not only suffering physically but also suffering from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. Brian Regions, the uninsured 34- year-old, is physically in agony every day with congestive heart failure and is consistently facing insufficient health care (Victory 736). As Victory accurately points out, Regions is not the only uninsured individual who is at risk for his expensive physical problems. It is also reported that there are thousands of others who are in physical agony with incurable heart damage (Victory 736). Without future heart support and financial intervention, Regions and many others may

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

In a 2003 court case, “Caesar Barber v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al.,” Barber claimed he was unaware of the nutritional and fat content of the fast food he ate on a near-daily basis for decades, and which he claimed caused his multiple illnesses (Daily Caller). The people of the court ruled that Barber’s choice of food was the cause of his many health issues, not the restaurants which supplied the fast food. In this case, the court held the consumer responsible for his selections; however, the court’s expectation of personal responsibility in food selection will most likely become anachronous. The article “Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?” addresses the issue of rapidly growing fast-food chain restaurants, such as McDonalds, Burger King, and Taco Bell, and the health issues that perpetuate from an increased amount of these restaurants. Anywhere we travel today, out of town, to a big city or a small village, consumers are bound to see some sort of advertising for fast food. Many billboards display life-size pictures of steaming hot sandwiches, fresh-cut fries, or an ice cold beverage. The streets are lined with bright, golden arches, fluorescent bells, or a red-headed, smiling little girl. All of these modes of advertisement draw consumers in, whether they be hungry or simply in a rush with no time to cook dinner at home, and feed them food that just isn’t up to par with healthy-eating standards. Notice, these restaurants don’t use force to bring customers in by the masses;

In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.

In an article published in the New York Times, journalist Mark Bittman explores the common misconception that junk food is more cost efficient than buying and preparing your own food. In the article “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?” Bittman attempts to unravel common arguments revolving around the affordability and convenience of fast food and proposes some alternatives to what he deems as a contributing factor to obesity in America. Though Bittman makes an understandable argument in the article the general tone and method in which he chooses to build his argument may seem contemptuous at times and at some points lacking in informative evidence and relevant statistics.

This quote demonstrates the book’s theme of perseverance because of its powerful motivation to overcome the pain and give it your all.

Zinczenko’s rhetorical comments on the fast food industry are spaced throughout his piece. Zinczenko also states that alternative options are hard to find when fast food is readily available. “Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I guarantee you’ll see one of our country’s more than 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit” (Zinczenko 463). This strong statement proves Zinczenko’s irritated tone throughout his piece. Zinczenko’s stand that the fast food industry is responsible for obesity.

Would you like to have no decisions on the healthiness of your food, and being able to only eat fast food, fried foods, etc. Most people would say no and rightfully so, people should be able to have choices on the foods they want to eat whether it’s healthy, unhealthy, fast food, farm grown, we shouldn’t have only unhealthy foods for our choices of what we eat. In the film Food Inc. directed by Robert Kenner there is a part in the movie that talks about the food choices of consumers. A point that was talked about for a decent amount of time in this part was how healthier foods are more expensive than fast food. This stood out to me because it’s true it cost more to eat healthy than it does to just go through a drive through. This is outrageous it should be the opposite, we should have to spend more for fast food than healthy foods. While at most fast food places there are ways you can eat healthy food but it is still more expensive than just buying a cheeseburger or chicken nuggets. During this part of the film a family was talking and saying that they have to choose whether to eat healthier food or get there father/husbands medicine so he could work. A family has to choose between those to things and that is not fair to anyone that has to make that decision. The family wanted to have better food and to not always be eating fast food meals but they don’t really have a choice and that is heartbreaking to see.

Michael Pollan in his book titled ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma’ takes a critical look at the food culture in the Unites States. According to him, the question that seems to bother most Americans is simply ‘What should we have for dinner today?’ To Pollan, Americans face this dilemma because they do not have a proper tradition surrounding food. ‘The lack of a steadying culture of food leaves us especially vulnerable to the blandishments of the food scientist and the marketer for whom the omnivore’s dilemma is not so much a dilemma as an opportunity; (Pollan). He cites the example of the Atkins diet and how an entire nation changed its eating habits almost overnight. A nation that had deep rooted food culture values would

Stress is caused when the body perceives a threat. During this time, the mind relies on reflexes to aid the body in the flight-or-fight response. In “The Most Dangerous Game”, the author uses the literary device imagery to convey the message of how

To support his argument, Huebner uses statements such as "The sellers are often tricked or coerced by brokers, they don 't always get the promised payment, and even when they are paid, that rarely solves whatever problem prompted them to sell the organ. In fact, the "solution" usually makes matters much worse.” Huebner also states that "Rich patients in need of organs take advantage of the world 's poor"(Huebner, Albert), insinuating that only rich people can afford to buy organs. While both of these statements support the claim made, there isn 't much actual research to support it. No evidence or believable examples were found in the article. While it may be true that more rich people are able to receive organ transplants, it 's not fair to say that it 's only the rich people who are exploiting the poor. That is, if they are even being exploited at all. Who is to say that the poor people who would sell organs wouldn 't be doing so in order to make a better life for themselves and their family? Until an organ market is established and research is done to support these claims, there is very little fact to support them. This leads into the next claim, that commodifying organs will take the integrity out of donating.

Every day, 20 people die because they are unable to receive a vital organ transplant that they need to survive. Some of these people are on organ donation lists and some of them are not. The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among those who do not receive the organs they need. In the United States alone, nearly 116,000 people are on waiting lists for vital organ transplants. Another name is added to this list every 10 minutes. This paper will argue that organ donation should not be optional. Every person who dies, or enters an irreversible vegetative state with little or no brain function, should have his or her organs-more specifically, those among the organs that are suitable for donation-harvested. A single healthy donor who has died can save up to eight lives (American Transplant Foundation).

They conclude that “research shows that the underlying motivation of most paid kidney donors is poverty” and that “paid kidney donation is associated with depression, regret, and discrimination” (The State of the International Organ Trade, 2007). In other words, throwing money at the poor in exchange for their organs will not get them out of poverty. Offering a financial incentive program for organ donation will allow the rich to exploit the poor and deprive the poor from life-saving donation. The demand for organs will likely remain higher than the supply; therefore, prices for organs will become competitive and eliminate the chance for the poor to receive a transplant. Implementing financial compensation would only serve to shift the demographic of organ recipients away from those with the greatest need to those with the greatest wealth.