Posted: October 27th, 2022
Four important steps when composing a proposal include (1) convincing the audience that there is a problem that needs to be solved, (2) explaining what you want your audience to do about the problem, (3) acknowledging opposing viewpoints or steps to solving the problem and (4) justifying the action you are asking your audience to take. What strategies will you use for each step? What will make your content for each of these steps effective?
Many people have either engaged in an argument that seemed unresolvable or witnessed such an argument between friends and family members. Consider one of these arguments you have either experienced or witnessed, and then identify the fallacies that were expressed during this discussion or argument. Note how the fallacies prevented the discussion from being resolved. What did you learn about fallacies from this experience that you can apply to your proposal essay? How might fallacies like these be avoided in proposal writing?
Sale, Trade, and Donation of Human Organs
Grand Canyon University
English Composition II / ENG-106
Professor Tasha Green
Sale, Trade, and Donation of Human Organs
Physicians have suggested selling organs as a possible solution to the almost endless shortage of organs for transplantation. However, several people consider this concept unethical and claim that the practice will be malicious and the government should abolish it. This paper will concentrate on kidney transplantation because the kidney is the most frequently transplanted organ. The ethical documentation on organ dealing is mainly about kidney business from live beneficiaries. ‘Organ deal’ excludes the supply of other body products, a classification that includes blood, eggs, hair, and sperm. For example, the possibility of permanent mischief is slightly less on account of hair and blood donations. Besides, the sale and donation of sperm and eggs raise other problems associated with creating and raising children. Significant major concerns regarding organ sale and donations are comparable, and in both cases, there are exceptionally same questions about abuse and consent.
Due to the challenges associated with the sale, trade, or gift of human organs, it is critical to understand its drivers. There is a shortage of organs available for transplantation worldwide. This disparity in interest and supply has caused various people in Western nations with organ failure to search for transplants overseas, frequently in developing countries. These individuals often do not ask about how the doctors acquired the organ (Elias, Lacetera & Macis, 2015). Furthermore, fake healthcare professionals and intermediaries who see the potential of financial gain enhance this process. They manipulate both the primary recipient and the helpless dealer. It is a terrible behavior affecting human nature; people would want to discover a net income anywhere there is a business, regardless of human abuse.
Many governments are not able to regulate the trafficking of organs, despite strict and subtle legislations. Nor are they capable of supplying the needy with organs. There are accounts of the kidnapping and murder of young people and adults to “reap” their organs. Many people are persistent, not because the organs are not available, but because “ethical quality” does not allow them to have organs. “Arguments against the “organ deal” are based on two significant factors: (1) the deal is in contrast to the social status and (2) the significance of harm (Crepelle, 2016). Experts analyzed both of these grievances and concluded that, as compared to mental stability, they represent a state of simple moralism. It argued that a living human body comprises an essential source of supply of tissues and organs and that physicians should consider the potential effects of its appropriate use. People cannot test commercialization by refusing their honest to goodness necessities to a poor person yet by rendering the prerequisite departments efficient.
There are regulations relating to the selling, exchange, or donation of human organs. Others have suggested that the best approach to solving organ failure is not to focus on building up the supply of organs from dead or living organ donors but rather to abuse the capacity of preventive medicinal and tissue regeneration solutions through various means (Wall, Plunkett & Caplan, 2015). The first would boost the health of the population and would later minimize the number of people needing kidneys (or multiple organs) along these lines. While the second would offer appointive therapies to organ dissatisfaction, such as restoring organs using immature microbes. On the off chance that these methods were to yield the results their proponents anticipated, people might foresee a potential end to the organ shortage and the awful masses that drive it (Wall et al., 2015). The following three draft proposals seek to increase the supply of organs. Each project stands alone, and people should not be view in combination with the other two but independently.
The first one is “paired donation and list donation” (Wall et al., 2015). These are creative forms of organ donation that allow living donors who are organically incompatible with their intended recipients to collaborate or to make donations conceivable in circumstances where they would not be otherwise, under the general public keeping up the rundown. As part of a “chain trade,” paired donation and list donation can be incorporated and used together. Chain trades contain two sets (A and B) in their least complicated structure that do not fulfill all conditions for a consolidated donation, meaning that both donors do not control the opposite pair’s recipients. Instead, pair A’s beneficiary matches only the benefactor of pair B. The benefactor of pair A donates a kidney to the suggested recipient of pair B in a network exchange. The giver of pair B gives a kidney to the general list of kidneys like this. Pair A’s expected recipient then rises the standing tight kidney checklist.
Secondly, there is donation after controlled cardiac death. In some, highly specified clinical situations, physicians and families can choose that the life of a given patient is still valuable life-maintaining care. These weakening individuals are sometimes possible organ donors who doctors can remove their organs before they die (Wall et al., 2015). The act of suspected “organ donation after monitored cardiac death.” Proponents of the procedure claim that it has obscured potential in the fight to develop the supply of organs until now because some transplant centers and doctor’s facilities still do not have donation after regulated cardiac death guidelines.
After controlled heart passing, the donation should be honed only within the framework of an express therapeutic center approach that articulates specific successful and medical criteria. The following six requirements will include an ethically credible therapeutic center approach (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). To begin with, the option of pulling back speculations must focus on the willingness to give freely. Second, as non-givers, donors must obtain similar end-of-life palliative care. Third, the health facility should provide the families of the possible contributors the option of being available when life support is pulled back and, in general, take every step to encourage families and associates to bid farewell dignifiedly (Wall et al., 2015). Also, parents should not carry any additional expenses associated with a donation. Fourth, after complete discontinuation of heart capacity, acquisition groups must retain the specified time measure before the organ expulsion begins (Shaikh et al., 2016). Fifth, healthcare workers prescribing drug withdrawal must not hurry the patient’s passage, irrespective of whether the organs may become un-transplantable. Sixth, if patients do not die fast enough to wind up donors, they should develop a method to transfer these patients to a place where they can progress more comfortably.
Thirdly, there is cash payment for organs (Cherry, 2015). One of the most spoken about and controversial strategies for increasing the supply of organs is to amend the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984 to legalize cash transactions for organs, a move that could require any of several systems. .This proposal justifies an increased dialog to some extent, in the light of its apparent quality in late open negotiations.
There would be no less than two essential people, the organ ‘seller’ and the organ recipient, in any system in which people provided organ payments. It is possible to have three kinds of categories of organ traders. The main class comprises living beneficiaries who agree to the present offering of their organs. These sellers will be restricted to supplying a kidney, a liver section, or even a lung flap for security purposes (Brandt, Wilkinson & Williams, 2017). The second class involves prospective donors who offer their organs with future rights that will be available after death, on the off chance that they should bite the dust in a manner that makes them suitable donors. In this classification, the dealers could be interested in what people commonly refer to as a “fates market” (Cherry, 2015). The third category would consist of departed beneficiaries; whose chosen aides would pay at the period of organ procurement. The surrogates may include family, associates, or perhaps an organization that is most valued, such as a charity (Shaikh et al., 2016). As a consequence, the surrogate would receive the expired organs and could then sell them.
Despite established legislations, a possible solution to the country’s organ shortage was monetary desires for organ donations. Opponents can refer to countless concerns about the use of financial benefits for the living (Cherry, 2015). Moreover, cadaveric donations, most of which have ended up being unpersuasive. Still, they fail to offer a superior choice. It is doubtful that financial driving factors can achieve complete acceptance from society because of paternalistic concerns of exploitation and abuse. The government can reduce these fears with strict directions and supervision.
No organ acquisition scheme has seen success worldwide. It is a great chance to try another system. The moment has come to accept the possibility that providing motivating forces involving money will solve the nation’s organ shortage. Those limited to motivating factors effectively condemn a significant number of people to death yearly, and many more to a life of suffering, by maintaining the use of a motivator-based organ acquisition system.
Brandt, R., Wilkinson, S., & Williams, N. (2017). The donation and sale of human eggs and sperm.
Cherry, M. J. (2015). Kidney for sale by owner: human organs, transplantation, and the market. Georgetown University Press.
Crepelle, A. (2016). A Market for human organs: an ethical solution to the organ shortage. Ind. Health L. Rev., 13, 17.
Elias, J. J., Lacetera, N., & Macis, M. (2015). Sacred values? The effect of information on attitudes toward payments for human organs. American Economic Review, 105(5), 361-65. DOI: 10.1257/aer.p20151035
Shaikh, S. S., & Bruce, C. R. (2016). An ethical appraisal of financial incentives for organ donation. Clinical liver disease, 7(5), 109. doi:
Wall, S. P., Plunkett, C., & Caplan, A. (2015). A potential solution to the shortage of solid organs for transplantation. Jama, 313(23), 2321-2322. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.5328
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.