Response to Epstein's Essay of Organ Donations

Melanie E. Woldt
May 31, 2007
Blog for week three

Response to Epstein’s Essay of Organ Sales

Richard A. Epstein’s essay “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” is briefly about whether donating organs voluntarily or donating organs for a cash is a better way to come by the necessary organs. Epstein supports the organ sales. He believes this will help alleviate the tremendous strain on the waiting list for organs.
Epstein first states that a live donation requires tremendous sacrifice, such as the loss of a kidney, or the pain of surgery. He then rebuts this by saying that although volunteering one’s organs is honorable, selling one’s organs is a better method of treating a patient. His reason for this is that as Americans are more apt to do something for monetary reimbursements, the patient is more likely to receive an organ in a timely manner, and therefore more likely to recover quicker than average.
Epstein’s next opposition statement mentions that a cadaveric donation while helpful, more often than not goes to the next of kin of the grieving family over a more needed patient elsewhere. He rebuts the statement by saying that by selling the organs, the next of kin will be more willing to give the more needed patient the necessary organs sooner.
Epstein makes the point that the waiting list went from 13,000 in 1988 to nearly 40,000 in need of an organ today, the need for monetary rewards for organs has increased dramatically. He follows that up by suggesting the legalization of the sale of organs as an alternative to the ever growing waiting list for organs.
Epstein states the fact that many potential sellers would decline to offer an organ for sale, even if it were legal. He rebuts this by saying that universal participation is not necessary, but that having the monetary reward will increase the chances of organ donations.
Epstein’s essay with this method of argument was not effective. I am not persuaded towards his way of thinking. I think that because he used the back and forth method of arguing, has made me think that he almost does not know what he wants.
Epstein uses the method of argument that states the opposition, and then rebuts it. This is not a very affective method of persuasion. As I read through Epstein’s article, I found it confusing as to which side he was opting for. His essay jumped from one side of the opposition to the other side of the argument, which made it unclear for me to follow his proposition. In order to capture and persuade the most amounts of readers, he should consider changing his method of argument. It is unclear as to what side he is for or against. I read a few of the other blogs in order for me to better understand his take on the whole ordeal. He needs to be a bit more clear if he is wanting to persuade me to his way of thinking.