Critical Analysis of article “Organ salves will save lives” 

Critical Analysis of article “Organ salves will save lives”

Introduction

The article “Organ salves will save lives” by MacKay Joanna is based on the modern-day debate regarding the morality 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. Generally, I support the main idea in the article based on how the author brings out the main ideas and how these have been argued out.

Additionally, the points are sequentially arranged to bring out the main idea in the article. 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 transplants, with a few additional information being 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 be designed to 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 healthcare professionals should embrace organ transplants due to its advantages as it can be the basis of healing diseases such as kidney failure and renal complications.

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 of organ transplants. The better part of the article is centralized on the costs associated with the purchase of kidneys, and not the health impacts of kidney transplants. Therefore, given the opportunity, I would add more information about the health benefits, risks, and how to deal with these when it comes to matters to do with kidney plantation.

Is the opposition adequately addressed?

Arguably, the author does not seem to address the counter-arguments presented by the opposition adequately. One of the objections that the author discusses in the article is the moral argument opposing kidney transplant, and even here, the author does not provide compelling evidence to support her argument. Similarly, the legal counter-arguments against kidney transplantation are not adequately addressed as it only focuses on the costs associated with the logistics of kidney transplantation.

Does the research seem to be balanced, or was it biased?

In her quest to bring out her main arguments in support of kidney transplantation, 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 purpose 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?

From a personal understanding, I believe that the central assumption that the author has held for the better part of the article is that the poor individuals in third world countries are the main casualties that could potentially be exploited in organ transplantation. However, I tend to disagree with this argument. 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 article is generally well designed to address the critical issues as the author intended. Additionally, the article helps in bringing to light some of the common arguments surrounding the whole point of organ transplantation. With better arguments fronted towards dealing with contentious issues, for instance, religion that form the basis for counter-arguments surrounding the topic, the article can be improved upon to better provide the relevant information.