Richard A. Epstein's Persuasion Methods

Throughout Epstein's column he continually states his idea that sales of organs should be legalized. While understanding others' points of view, he believes that to decrease the number of people on waiting lists, the government should allow others willing to sell their organs. With his position stated and supported by the many beliefs of others proved wrong, Epstein tries to prove to his readers that selling organs will be a positive outcome.
In the beginning of Epstein's column he starts off asking the most important question, "Why condemn sales?". Right away he states his opinion that there are many people out there that are in desperate need of organ transplants and few people are able to help. By selling organs, Epstein believes that the number of needed organs will go down as the number of people wanting to help goes up. He then goes on to include voluntary exchange. Here he is encouraging people to donate there organs, but is simply stating that although some are willing to donate, the number of people are still not enough to make an impact. Epstein makes a very good point when he says that a "mother might well give her kidney to her son. But when asked to donate to a stranger, she would probably recoil at the obvious costs"(103). Donating to family no one stops to think about the costs. They are family so it is expected of you. But when asked to help a stranger, people begin to worry about the costs because then their health or life seems to be more precious.
Epstein is good about taking the opposing side's concerns and turning them around to state the obvious or the better side of the problem. An example of this is when Epstein states, "we are told that organ sales must be banned because individuals verge on irrationality, unable to make informed judgments about the risks they assume" (104). With this said Epstein turns around and asks why complex surgeries also test rational decision making and why we do not ban experimental treatments even though patients are easily confused then too. He makes a good point. The opposing side states that we are doing things without the patient’s knowledge of the risks, but at the same time we are already doing this in other situations. Experimental treatments are dangerous and can sometimes cause death. How is it any different when we transplant an organ with similar risks as being dangerous and may cause death?
Another example of Epstein twisting the opposing side’s concerns is when they introduced the idea that if people were allowed to sell organs then the rich people would be favored over the poor. Just as Epstein says, the rich are already favored in today’s society. He has a good point when he says that nothing is preventing the government from helping the poor purchase organs with tax dollars. It seems that no matter what the opposing side throws toward Epstein as an excuse for banning organ sales, he always has another come back that will benefit from sales.
By using examples of opposition/rebuttal, Epstein can clearly persuade his readers. Being able to take others’ questions and concerns and answering them with little hesitation causes others to be further persuaded. In my own personal perspective, I am most persuaded by people who take action and believe in what they are trying to get across to others. If they know their facts and are able to answer questions of others without hesitation, it has a stronger hold on people.
As Epstein states his opinion and further supports himself by answering the opposing side’s questions, he further draws in his audience. He holds strong in his beliefs and does not hesitate when opinions or concern rise up. He simply turns the problems around and finds the better side to focus on. Throughout this column I believe Epstein did a great job persuading me in believing that organ selling should be legalized.