Imagine watching a family member suffer unimaginable pain, all the while knowing that the key to ending their pain of waiting for an organ transplant is being given to a prisoner currently serving time for murder. Would you find yourself feeling forgiveness? Would you be content telling yourself that we are all humans deserving of necessary medical care? Now imagine being an inmate serving the last two months of your sentence for robbery, and the organ that should’ve gone to you was given to another member of society due to your imprisonment. Would you be forgiving of society for taking away your chance at a new start in life? These are the questions faced in articles such as L. Cherkassky’s article, “Rational rejection? The ethical complications of assessing organ transplant candidates in the United Kingdom and the United States,” which explores the moral implications that would follow the modification of the organ allocation system to include social and psychological criteria in organ allocation. Andrew Cameron et al.’s article, “Should a Prisoner Be Placed on the Organ Transplant Waiting List?” argues that, in order to avoid unjust bias, we should stick to strictly biological criteria, such as patient health and immune system strength. Finally, Kristen Plate’s article, “Prisoners and Organ Transplants: Do Society’s Most Dangerous Deserve Priority Medical Care?” maintains that prisoners should be eligible to receive organs, depending on the severity of the crimes they committed. Due to the fact that the issue covered is such a morally gray area in a highly scientific field, all three authors rely heavily on claims of value and definition. However, all three articles use different types of proofs of logos and pathos to make their respective arguments. Overall, the arguments made in each article help to thoroughly support their claims because they use counterarguments and qualifying language to strengthen their claims and warrants.
Cherkassky’s article “Rational rejection? The ethical complications of assessing organ transplant candidates in the United Kingdom and the United States” claims that organs are a valuable resource in society and that there should be a psychological and social consideration behind who receives the organ transplant (Cherkassky 12). This claim is simultaneously a claim of value and policy. The author’s main argument is a claim of value because it weighs the moral implications of a potential policy change. This is a risky choice because the entire argument is contingent on the reader holding the same things to be morally true. This warrant is helpful because when the reader and the author are on the same page as it forces the reader to place themselves in the situation and become personally involved versus reading as an objective third party. The overall claim of value is supported by a variety of sub-claims that utilize various forms of proofs. While there are many covered in her article.
The first major sub-claim made by Cherkassky is that organs are a valuable resource that should be allocated responsibly due to their rarity. This claim is one that is effective because it is one of definition, it in turn leaves little to the unknown. The warrant is that the reader is on the same page as the author as to what constitutes as scarce, but the author addresses this and avoids confusion by using proofs of logos, and explicitly defining what organ scarcity is and its importance as “The scarcity of human organs means that they must be handled like precious resources. They must not be wasted.” (Cherkassky 4). The author also helps to support her claim of the importance of proper allocation of organs by using the pathos proof of motivation. In clearly defining how scarce and precious of a commodity that organs are Cherkassky motivates the reader to want to protect the organs and to avoid the potential waste that could come from giving them to an incarcerated individual. While Cherkassky’s explicit explanation of her warrant helps to strengthen her argument, the lack of statistics to support her claim of the rarity of organs hurts her claim. Though it may be thought of as common knowledge that organs are rare it is always beneficial to support any claims made to avoid the argument to be dismantled. . Cherkassky’s second sub-claim advocates for the best-bet principle to be merged into the current system in place to allocate organs for transplant. The best-bet principle is one that would focus more on giving the organ to the patient who would utilize it the best versus the patient with the greatest need. The overall claim is one of value and is supported by proofs of definition and authority. Cherkassky begins by defining the best bet principle to ensure that the reader is given all the information before proceeding with her argument (8). In beginning her argument for the integration of the best bet principle by defining key term it brings the reader up to her level so they are more likely to understand and form logical opinions on the information that will be consequently presented to them. The second kind of proof utilized by Cherkassky is an ethos proof of authority. Cherkassky backs up her argument by referencing how “the “best bet” principle is similar to the consequence-based theory of utilitarianism. The best-known form of utilitarianism is that of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who originally submitted that actions should aim towards producing the greatest good for the greatest number by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain” (8). By using the authority of a well-known figure Cherkassky thoroughly supports her claim as she gives it credibility.
Cherkassky is also very smart about the use of counterargument and qualifying language to support her claim. By addressing the other side in phrases such as “transplant teams may also acquire a reputation as “God Squads”” (9), passing moral judgment upon those who seek their precious resource” she allows herself the opportunity to give a well thought out response. The author is also careful to use qualifying language to avoid discrediting her argument. For example, when discussing the possibility of integrating ethical considerations into the current system, the use of “this appears” in “This appears to be the preferred method in both countries, and this combination of ethical approaches enables transplant teams to take account of a patient’s best interests” (9) helps to maintain the integrity of the statement. If the author had avoided using the qualifying phrase the entire argument could be discredited as what is true for the majority may not apply to the whole.
Overall Cherkassky makes effective uses of a variety of types of claims and proofs, relying especially on claims of value and the use of counterargument to strengthen her argument. This solid argument paired with her authority in the field help to make this article a good source available on the topic.
In the authors of “Should a Prisoner Be Placed on the Organ Transplant Waiting List?” response to changing organ recipient policy, they argue through claims of definition and the use of counterargument, similar to Cherkassky, the importance of using on biological criteria to determine the allocation of organs for transplant. The overall tone of the authors’ response is very rooted in science and current fact; through the use of definition he makes a strong case for a biological base for donation policy. In the statement of “The MELD score is objective, reproducible, and based solely on laboratory data” (1) they both strengthen and weaken their argument. The authors’ argument is validated by claims such as the previous one because it shows they are supported by the current policies in place that seem to be working just fine. With that being said, however, by ignoring the emotional and moral side of a very ethically challenging dilemma they risk losing the reader’s support by seeming cold and uncaring to the gray side of what they are writing of as a black and white issue. Where Cherkassky and the authors of “Should a Prisoner Be Placed on the Organ Transplant Waiting List?” articles are similar is their clever use of counterargument to strengthen their respective arguments. Both sources do a good job of acknowledging the other side of the coin and responding to it. Cameron as well as his co-author’s acknowledgement of, “The intuitive response of most was that felons have violated the rules of society and ought to be punished, not rewarded with society’s most precious assets. There was a sense of outrage over the inherent injustice of awarding high-quality, costly care to a criminal at public expense when millions of law-abiding citizens remained uninsured and unable to afford similar care” (2) allows them to respond to the counterargument that moral implications should be considered.
Cameron and his co-author’s article would be a useful tool in the writing of my research paper due to how it does a good job of defining key terms and appeals to the logical side of the reader. While it does lack empathy at points, it is eventually made up for with the thorough acknowledgement of the other side’s opinions.
In Kristen Plates Article “Prisoners and Organ Transplants: Do Society’s Most Dangerous Deserve Priority Medical Care?” she makes the claim that prisoners in need of organ transplant should be ranked on the list depending on the severity of their crimes (2). Through claims of value and policy she makes a valid argument but it is one that must be taken with a grain of salt due to her lack of authority. Unlike Cherkassky and Cameron, Plate has no authority in the subject matter. This fact is partially made up for by the citing of sources that do have authority on the subject, but the paper is lacking authority as a whole. Putting aside the lack of authority, the article makes a claim of policy to recommend how we a society should proceed in the future. Plate “concludes that prisoners should receive transplants and that the best option to allocate organs to prisoners is by degree of crime” (2). In presenting a plan to the reader she makes her argument more enticing to the reader. The claim of policy is strong, but the claim as a whole could lose credibility due to her lack of credibility.
When faced with a medical question would you turn to an MD or a blog author? The answer in most cases is pretty clear, as a non-scholarly source goes, blog author, Kristen Plate’s article is well written and thought out, however, it would be hard to use this in a research paper due to its lack of authority in comparison to the other sources available on the topic. The lack of credibility of the author would make it easy for the opposing side to dismantle and discredit her whole argument.
Overall, articles covered in this paper are a collection of well written and well supported claims on the current state of the organ transplant system in the United States. Through a variety of ethos, pathos, and logos based proofs each author makes a strong argument to support their individual recommendations for the transplant system moving forward. As well as having strong claims and sub-claims the authors’ uses of counterargument and qualifying language only help to strengthen the already sound logic in place.