Introduction
The phenomenon of organ donation remains one of the most debatable issues of the 21st century (Rana et al. 252). Although there have been attempts at raising awareness regarding the subject matter, a range of myths persist among the public. This essay is aimed at subverting three of the most common myths about the subject matter by considering the facts closely, relating them to the values concerning the organ donation, and isolating the issues related to the organ donation procedure.
Myth 1
“If I become a donor, doctors won’t work as hard to save my life in an emergency” (Inch and Warnick 237).
The statement above can be viewed as a prime example of a logical fallacy known as the faulty cause (Mauk and Metz 416). The assumption presumes that there is an explicit link between donation and healthcare fees without substantial proof.
Myth 2
“I am too old; no one would want my organs” (Inch and Warnick 237).
Another myth that has nothing to do with reality, the statement in question is false as it contains the argument from ignorance. Looking into the claim, one will realize that it implies that there is a certain age at which organ donation is impossible. The procedure, however, does not require that the patient should be under a particular age (Walton 196). Thus, the argumentation must be viewed as invalid in this case.
Myth 3
“My family will have to pay for the hospital bills and surgery if I donate” (Inch and Warnick 238).
Similarly to the previous examples, the case in point is an example of a faulty cause. By claiming that there is a link between the expenses taken and the surgery without consulting the corresponding sources firsthand, one makes a logical fallacy. As a result, a myth emerges, while, in fact, the surgery is paid for by a different stakeholder: “All costs related to donation are paid for by the organ procurement organization” (“Frequently Asked Questions About Donation” par. 3).
Facts
The authors of the case point very clearly to the lack of awareness regarding the issue of organ donorship. The problem above, in its turn, triggers the dilemmas regarding the encouragement of donation among patients and the possible ethical, religious, and legal implications. Due to the lack of information on organ donorship, a range of myths have been created, thus, ruining the opportunities for saving people’s lives all over the world.
Values
A range of values are associated with the concept of organ donorship. For instance, the phenomenon altruism can be viewed as an example. In addition, organ donation implies assuming responsibility, which is an essential value. Finally, empathy for the people suffering from diseases can be interpreted as one of the values behind the concept of organ donation (Dalal 45).
Issues
However, organ donation is also fraught with a range of moral, ethical, and legal issues. As it has been stressed above, the threat of encouraging fraudulent organizations to trick people into donating is very high. Furthermore, certain denizens of the population may feel that their beliefs conflict with the concept of organ donation.
Should Be Included
While the criminal issues related to organ donations have been touched upon in the article, they could have been explored better. By providing more information on organ trafficking, the authors would have addressed some of the greatest concerns regarding the subject matter.
Conclusion
Debunking the myths about organ donation is a challenging task due to the lack of awareness concerning the subject matter. As the case study under analysis has shown, people often refuse to apply any critical thought to the phenomenon, mostly because of its controversy. However, to reduce the rates of ignorance about organ transplantation and promote donorship as the means of saving people’s lives, one will have to address the fallacies in people’s statements, including the faulty cause premises, arguments from ignorance, etc.
Works Cited
Dalal, Aparna. “Philosophy of Organ Donation: Review of Ethical Facets.” World Journal of Transplantation 5.2 (2015): 44-51. Print.
Frequently Asked Questions About Donation 2016. Web.
Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick. Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument. 6th ed. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 2010. Print.
Mauk, John, and John Metz. The Composition of Everyday Life, Brief. Stamford, CT: Abebooks, 2011. Print.
Rana, Abbas, Angelika Gruessner, Vatche G. Agopian, Zain Khalpey, Irbaz B. Riaz, Bruce Kaplan, Karim J. Halazun, Ronald W. Busuttil, and Rainer W. G. Gruessner. “Survival Benefit of Solid-Organ Transplant in the United States.” JAMA Surgery 150.2 (2015): 252-259. Print.
Walton, Douglas. Fallacies Arising from Ambiguity. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. Print.