Critical Analysis
Introduction
The article “Organ salves will save lives” by MacKay Joanna is based on the modern-day debate regarding the morality and legal implications of organ sale and its impact on saving lives. The article focuses on the idea that the legalization of organ transplants would help in saving lives than it would cause harm. The use of ethos, pathos, and logos further aids in facilitating a deeper understanding of the topic to the reader. Therefore, through the article, the author has brought out the relevant and vital information regarding organ sales, with a few additional information required to deepen the article’s area of focus further.
Overview
Generally, the article is calling for the legalization of organ transplant, by focusing on the impacts of this practice in saving human lives. To support this notion, the author focuses on the large number of renal disease patients who end up losing their lives while waiting for potential donors to offer their organs for free. The author says, “In the year 2000 alone, 2583 Americans died while waiting for a kidney transplant; worldwide, the number of deaths is around 50,000” (MacKay 1). However, opposers of organ transplants argue that it is against the moral of the human being. But the author argues that “In matters of life and death, our stances on moral issues must be reevaluated.”
Body
How clear, argumentative, and useful is the thesis?
Generally, a thesis statement depicts the main idea on which the whole essay or article is based. For this reason, the thesis statement should incorporate all the ideas on which the essay or article is based. In the article, the author settles on a short and precise thesis statement. A good thesis statement is characterized by features such as precision, specificity, ability to be argued, to mention a few. Therefore, the author’s thesis falls squarely within these features as it is simplified; it is one short sentence, it is very accurate, and it is easy to generate a whole article from the thesis statement. The thesis is that if organ sales were legalized and controlled, then it would help in saving the lives of the many renal disease patients who result to illegal measures of acquiring a new kidney. Legalization would also help in protecting individuals who resolve to sell their organs due to poverty from exploitation.
How convincing is the argument? What can be added or omitted?
On a scale of one to ten, one being not convincing and ten being very convincing, I would rate the author’s argument at a seven. Reading through the article, one gets the impression of a significant focus on financial gain or loss and not a clear focus on the benefits or disadvantages that would result from the legalization of organ sales. The better part of the article is centralized on the costs associated with the purchase of kidneys. It pays little attention to the benefits that the health system would accrue from the legalization of organ sales. Therefore, given the opportunity, I would add more information about the potential benefits that would result from the legalization of organ sales.
Is the opposition adequately addressed?
Arguably, the author does not seem to address the counter-arguments presented by the opposition adequately. In as much as I consider the author’s argument to achieve some level of logic and fairness, I don’t think the discussions are thorough enough. The author bases the debates on the moral perspective opposing kidney transplants, and even here, the author does not provide compelling evidence to support her argument. Additionally, the implications of the legalization of organ sales, for instance, increased exploitation of the poor and vulnerable individuals, are not adequately addressed in the counter-arguments.
Does the research seem to be balanced, or was it biased?
In the quest to bring out the main arguments regarding the legalization of organ sales, specifically kidney transplants, the author tends to be biased in terms of how the cases are phrased. In what appears to be more like cognitive bias, the author seems to be focusing more on evidence that supports the idea of kidney transplantation and giving little focus on evidence that tends to counter the idea of kidney transplantation. The author focuses more on the pros of organ transplants, sometimes even seeming to vouch for the illegal kidney transplantation, other than weighing between the pros and cons, then making an argument based on the two(MacKay 2).
What assumptions are made in the article?
The central assumption made in the article and on which the author has based the article is that the poor individuals in third world countries are the main casualties that could potentially be exploited in organ transplantation. This assumption is not necessarily correct. The poor are not the only individuals willing to give their organs for financial benefits. On several occasions, we have heard and even seen individuals who are not classified as poor or coming from third world countries selling their kidneys online for the most selfish reasons like to get money to buy the latest iPhone version. These, too, are prone to exploitation if they come into contact with the wrong people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the author has effectively used the article to address one of the contentious issues of debate in the modern-day. Additionally, the author has adequately addressed the financial implications of organ sales. However, the author fails to adequately address the legal consequences that surround the whole topic of organ sales. Therefore, this is an area of future review and improvement. Generally, the article is informative and has covered a vast majority of the issues surrounding the topic
Works Cited
MacKay, Joanna. " Organ Sales Will Save Lives. " W.W Norton and Company. (2008).