Dr. Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and a professor at Yale University. Dr. Satel’s reason of writing the essay was to show how there is extreme shortage of organ donors in the society. Dr. Sally’s thesis is that financial and other incentives should be introduced to raise more transplant organs. My thesis statement is Dr. Satel has done an exemplary job in exploring the current situation, and in advocating for change in the current organ donor situation.
In the article “˜Death’s Waiting List’, Sally Satel suggests that selling human organs needs to be legalized. For instance, she claims that for the organ business to be worth the efforts, incentives need to be introduced. Organ donor need to be compensated financially or through other means. The argument is strong considering that out of the 700, 000 people were in need of organ donation, only 16, 000 received the organs. Therefore, it’s essential to legalize organ commercialization in an attempt to save human lives. However, Sally Satel appears to disregard the worries and perceptions held by many countries and cities around the world. In addition, she provides illustrations considered to be unethical in support of organ donations.
In paragraph 1 and 2 of her article, Dr. Sally puts forth that only 30% out of 40% of Americans have volunteered to donate their organs. The rest have left the decision to family members to decide in their absence. In these two paragraphs, her argument is strong. She believes that relying on family members to make such decision is inappropriate with regard to the current situation. Therefore, the only viable way to obtain organs is through provision of financial incentives, guaranteed health insurance, and university scholarship for organ donors. However, in her argument, she disregards the ethical issues that restrict individuals from donating their organs.
In paragraph 7 Dr. Sally has a strong argument because she says that those opposing organ donation fear that the option of offering an organ for payment purposes will likely attract the poor and needy in the society. Therefore, such people are more likely to be exploited. To avoid such scenarios, she emphasizes on the need to empower the poor with education and relevant information in order to avoid exploitation.
In addition, Dr. Satel asks how unfair would it be for needy and poor people if their quality of life was enhanced by a financial compensation. This is a strong argument because organ compensation will not only save a life, but it will offer financial empowerment to the individual. Although, the poor and needy will be exploited, their financial standards will be raised. Therefore, her claim is justifiable. The fact is that providing education to organ donors can be achieved with government commitment.
On the other hand, the author does not seem to worry about this issue. As a matter of fact, she claims that any person who may be distasteful to the issue of organ donation for compensation ought to have a good reason as to why a life should be saved this way. She gives an example to illustrate this by saying that ethical considerations are not good enough to withhold organ donation. This is a weak argument because humans live in a society full of ethical considerations. Additionally, she assumes the questions addressed to her are pointless and hold no sense.
Conclusion
Dr.Satel’s reasoning that giving incentives would raise the amount of donors is a strong argument that cannot be dismissed without a critical evaluation. Giving incentive will benefit the donor while at the same time save the life of the recipient. She offers a remedy for education empowerment can prevent the poor and the needy from being exploited. Nevertheless, her argument that ethical consideration should not be considered when seeking organ donation is a weak point. A society is made up ethics and people must respect these ethics.