Epstein

Suzannah Bryan: Week 3 blog

Richard Epstein addresses the shortage of donated organs in his Boston Globe article from 2003 "Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales". The shortage of organ donors and the lengthening waiting lists of patients in need of organs has long been recognized as a serious problem. Jesse White, the former State Secretary of Illinois, has been campaigning in Illinois for over 15 years to increase the number of donors. Epstein believes that this reliance on only donations has led to innumerable unnecessary deaths. His solution is to compensate organ donors.

Epstein realizes that the concept of organ sales is distasteful to the general public so Epstein uses an argument/rebuttal format. He begins his essay by lauding those who do selflessly donate their loved one's organs or donate their own. His first major argument is an examination of the foundation of voluntary exchange or "contract of sale" (pg. 103). The second argument states that organ sales would benefit the greater good and therefore are moral (pg. 103). The third part of his argument is the actual argument/rebuttal which lasts through to the end of the essay.

Epstein addresses the argument "...the current ban prevents unfair exploitation of the most vulnerable...those who are desperate enough to sell their organs for cash" (pg. 104). Epstein refutes that argument saying that "organized markets would keep those people out of the system by concentrating on the segment of population that is in excellent health but which has some powerful financial reason to take the extreme step of selling organs" (pg. 104). He makes the point that those who would be most tempted to sell organs for cash often have poverty related health problems such as alcoholism, AIDS or simply poor nutrition.

Epstein addresses the argument that people will not be able to make rational decisions in times of stress about the risks by demonstrating that people already donate organs irrationally. Epstein points out that often donors are pressured into donating an organ to a loved one by other family members. Epstein says, "Confusion and pressure in combination rarely justify banning a practice with lifesaving potential" (pg. 104).

Opponents say that the extreme demand will force the price of organs sky high. Epstein counters saying that already organs are being sold in a manner of speaking as the cost of competing for donated organs can run upwards of about 100,000 dollars (pg 105). Epstein says that in a regulated market the prices will be reasonable and the cost spread throughout the health care system in the form of reduced waste and fewer patients on dialysis (pg. 105).

I find this form of argument very effective when advocating a controversial solution to a complex problem. After reading Epstein's thesis the reader automatically jumps to the vary same arguments that he addresses in the essay. Simply outlining the benefits of this solution would not be effective. Epstein rightly counters the common arguments to demonstrate more subtlety the logic of his unique position.