The article ‘Human organs for sale’ is written by David Holcberg, who is a media research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute. This article has also appeared in the American Chronicle in 2005. The author is trying to persuade the audience to support and promote the free trade of organs in order to help people who need organ transplants and possibly give them a new life.
The author has started the article in a very impactful manner by appealing to the emotional senses of the audience by describing that as athletes from over the world who have received donated organs are meeting up during the 2005 World Transplant Games, in London, Canada, however, there are “a record 82,000 individuals” (308) are on a waitlist for organ transplants and out of of the “82,000 waiting for kidneys or livers, 6,000 will die in the next 12 months” (308). The author has made use of both an emotional impact by telling the audience the whole number of people who will die to highlight the situation and directly following it is the rational appeal which the author presents casually as a solution staring right in our face by presenting legalizing the trade of human organs. Holcberg is using the emotional appeal to persuade the audience to legalize organ trade because he believes that is the only viable and sensible solution to undertake in order to save human life instead of people waiting in line to receive their organs as they hang in a balance between life and death. The author touches on some key points on the issue. Organs that are available for transplants currently rely on deceased donors.
The author here could have used a comparison by stating the current number of patients receiving the needed organ by relying solely on harvesting from deceased donors versus the number who would receive it as a result of legalizing the organ trade and sale. This would have highlighted the difference being made in people’s lives if such a law were to be passed and legalized. Holcberg has not quoted any credible sources or data to show in any true examples of how harvesting organs from only deceased donors may be a source of the problem for organ transplant patients as he defines it thus representing a lack of rational appeal to the audience to make them change their minds and consider making organ transplant legal and freely tradeable. This makes his argument vague at this point to the audience who don’t fully grasp how legalizing organ trade would affect human life on a large scale. So we have yet to truly believe this to be a true source of the problem. Although Holcberg is talking about this sensitive issue logically yet he is unable to support his argument by expert opinion, facts or other people’s claims about how relying solely on deceased donors hinders saving human lives in time.
What if we were to allow the legal sale of the deceased organs by the family members? It is argued this may be mutually advantageous. “It may work as a type of life insurance” (308) the family of the deceased gets “needed money” (308) and the patient, receives the “needed organ”. Holcberg uses the cause and effect relationship here between donating the human organ whether after death or while alive with saving human life in time and also providing compensation to the family to support his argument that if organ trade is made legal it can be used as life insurance as it benefits all the parties involved.
What are the risks involved with organ donation? To support this viewpoint, the author makes use of rational appeal by quoting the New England Journal of Medicine and Mayo Clinic as credible sources and giving quantitative evidence that the risk to a healthy donor is very minimal. The risk to a kidney donor’s life according to an article cited in New England Journal of Medicine, “the risk to a donor’s life is only 0.03% mortality.” (308) According to the Mayo clinic, “the extraction of a section of liver, for example, carries a risk to the donor’s life of less than 1 percent – not negligible.” (308) in regards to the liver it was noted that “liver donors can usually count on their healthy livers to regenerate and regain full function.” (308) Expression of risk in terms of percentage downplays the effect on the reader in terms of the emotional appeal of the data presented. For example, if Holcberg had said that out of every 10 kidney donors 3 die it would exaggerate the extent of risk faced and any sympathy in the audience would have been reversed.
Currently it is a criminal offense to procure organs from individuals who are willing to sell theirs. The author has very cleverly reached out to the audience through inductive reasoning making his argument rational and strong by saying that since every person can choose his or her actions, the matter of organ sale should be no different. He argues that the person selling the organ should have the right to make his or her decision and whether a “human being (poor or rich) regardless, have the ability to reason.” (308). He cleverly brings in the example through emotional appeal of father-son scenario arguing that a father “may decide to sell one of his kidneys to provide his child with the best medical treatment.” (308). In effect, he has made the logical conclusion of the above-mentioned point that if organ transplant is made freely trade able it would help save his child’s life in time.
I agree with Holcberg’s viewpoint that everyone at some point has been in financial hardship keeping within limits of their own standards of living. He uses the emotional appeal of the father and son to bring in the hearts. For the sake of argument, the father whether he is poor or rich would gladly donate his organ to save the life of his child. He will make the choices according to his own rationality and the income level cannot influence this decision because of the unconditional love that exists for the child’s life. The author has used the solemn and deep expression of emotions in order to pull at the heartstrings of the audience to persuade them that the free trade of organs can be logical. He uses the laws of the government as a scapegoat to prove his point of taking an unnecessary risk regarding health in the chase for financial reward. He compares the government laws that if, the government can make it a right of the person to give the organ then why not make it a law to also sell the organ.
Holcberg effectively addresses the critics’ point of view as well. The critics feel that such freedom may only benefit the people with the financial means to do so not those who are in most need. The author argues a patient with the means benefits only at his/her own expense no one else’s. “Need does not give anyone the right to damage other people’s lives.” (309) This is a strong argument made for people and their rights to their lives. The patients who are not capable of financially acquiring the needed organ will always have the current method of charity available.
To the point, one patient’s need should not prevent another patient from acquiring an organ needed to save his/her life, from a person prepared to sell his/hers.
There is another aspect discussed here, the rise of a criminal element. There is the fear of a rise in the black market in organ thievery. The author believes that it would require too much effort for there to become an epidemic in organ thieving. He states if it were made possible for people to make their own decisions on what they want to do with their organs; it would actually reduce that risk. There was no evidence of the statements made regarding criminal activity. Here I feel that the argument lacked credibility. It was a statement of theory. Good theory but criminals are criminals for a reason. We cannot accurately portray the results of criminal activity.
The author goes on to ask the reader “Ask Yourself: if your life depended on getting an organ, say a kidney or a liver, wouldn’t you be willing to pay for one? If you have a willing seller, should you not have the right to buy from him?” (309)
It is very difficult to say no in the situation of life and death. This was nicely done – really you cannot find a reason to not save your own life. The arguments have been made for and against the selling of organs by the author: in the end, you are either preventing death or feeding it.
Works Cited
Holcberg, David. “Human Organs for Sale.” American Chronicle. N.p., 2005. Web.