Rhetorical Analysis Of Organ Sales Will Save Lives By Joanna Mackay

An organ is so much more than a body part in fact it may even be a life line for some. Could you imagine selling your organs just to put food on the table? Joanna MacKay wrote "Organ Sales Will Save Lives,” which was published in 2016 in The Norton Field Guide to Writing with Readings by Richard Bullock. In this article MacKay argues that lives should be saved not wasted. MacKay helps build her credibility throughout this article with facts and statistics. Joanna MacKay right away states her position on the subject, she brings up points arguing how she believes the sale of human organs should not be illegal, they should be regulated. Throughout this article she successfully employs emotional appeals to audience. She employs her own facts while

Organ Sales Will Save Lives, states that about 350,000 Americans suffer from end-stage renal disease which is a kidney disorder that can be life threatening. MacKay continues to let the readers know how expensive, harsh and time-consuming dialysis can be. Some people don’t have the money to help pay for dialysis leaving their kidneys to just shut down and fail. The low odds of selling organs turns over to the black market, people for years now have been purchasing kidneys on the black market for about 150,000 dollars. This is highly illegal and can lead to many problems, there is no paper work to sign or any signs coming back to this. An organ from a cadaver turns out old or damaged, they look for a living donor. MacKay states that an organ from a living donor can last up to twice as

The money they get then goes toward food, clothing, and everything they need to support their family. MacKay shows emotional appeal in this regard; however, MacKay’s counterargument states that donating a kidney may be very risky. Although, not risky enough to be outlawed. A quote in The Lancet. states “If rich are free to engage in dangerous sports for pleasure, or dangerous jobs for high pay, it is difficult to see why the poor who take the lesser risk of kidney selling for greater rewards… should be thought so misguided as to need saving from themselves” (Radcliffe-Richards et al. 1951). MacKay put this in her article to make a point, if people can endanger themselves by doing everyday things then why should something that can help your well-being and health be outlawed?

Some readers may think Mackay’s article was very one sided, she didn’t state much of a counterargument and when she did, she stated a rebuttal to help the readers see how there is really no wrong in this. One of MacKay’s counterargument had to deal with John Paul the second who states the “selling of organs is morally wrong and violates the dignity of the human person.” (MacKay 158) MacKay states that we pay men for sperm, we pay woman for donating ova, yet we expect someone to give away an organ for free? If the sales of organs were allowed people would have