JustAnswer



Analyze: Review “How Much Is That Kidney in the Window?”

by Bruce Gottlieb on pages 578–581 and “‘Strip-Mining’ the

Dead” by Gilbert Meilaender on pages 582–586. Respond to

the two viewpoints using either the compare/contrast or the

classify/divide pattern of development. (Open, list)

In the two articles, "How much is that Kidney in the Window" and "Strip-Mining the Dead", the two authors take very different perspectives on the question of whether human organs should be for sale. Both authors agree that the human body should be treated with respect and dignity. However, Gottlieb prioritizes the right of the living to purchase the chance for continued life from a willing seller. In contrast, Meilaender admits that his moral principles mean that some people will die sooner than they otherwise might. However, he thinks it is more important to focus on human principles of the inviolability of the human body.

Gottlieb points out that selling a kidney is not like selling other body parts. A kidney can be sold and the donor can still live a normal life with relatively few risks. The reasons against selling organs are largely conventional, and he says that legislators would almost certainly be able to allow sales of kidneys without allowing for the sales of organs that would leave the donors dead or maimed. However, Meilaender says that regardless of the impact on the donor, for example, even donations from the dead, some things are simply not meant to be commercial transactions. It's not about whether the donor will be damaged, but whether the human race will be damaged by allowing us to think of the body as a commodity.

Gottlieb focuses on the number of people who would be able to receive transplants if organs were for sale. He says that the number of organs available for transportation is only a fraction of those required, and opening it up to the marketplace would save human lives. In addition, it would save money for the medical system (because the cost of the organ and transplantation is less than the cost of 2 years of dialysis) and would allow the poor to benefit financial by selling something that is valuable. However, Meilaender says that the number of lives saved is not the issue. He points out that the transplant industry has convinced us that transplantation is almost a right, but that before transplant technology became normal, patients simply lived out their lives and died. He considers the desecration of a human body to be more of a tragedy.

These two authors come to very different conclusions on the question. Meilaender comes to the conclusion that saving lives is less important than maintaining respect and reverence for the human body. Gottlieb, on the other hand, focuses on the scientific, pragmatic, and financial aspects of the question, and decides that the ability to buy and sell kidneys from living donors well outweighs the costs.

React: React to this thesis: A still-living human body and a

newly dead body should be treated with the same degree of

respect and dignity. Don’t immediately choose to agree or disagree.

Instead, explore in the entry your feelings and beliefs,

both agreement and disagreement, until you reach a point

of conviction, showing yourself coming to a place where you

strongly agree or disagree. (3 paragraphs, 5 sentences each)

It's natural for humans to feel reverence for the dead. It may not be rational, but it's normal for people to keep hushed in graveyards and at funerals, and not to 'speak ill' of the dead. Part of this is a natural human instinct out of respect for the person who died. Part of it is for the benefit of the person's family and friends, who don't see them just as a corpse. And part of it is for ourselves, since we will all end up as dead bodies eventually, and do not want to be treated with a lack of respect ourselves.

On the other hand, a dead body simply isn't alive. Reverence is one thing, but if one has to prioritize, it's more important to focus on the living. To use a gruesome example: think about the story Alive, where a group of people who suffered a plane crash in the mountains ate human flesh to stay alive. It's horrible, but it was necessary to keep them alive, and the people were dead anyway. It would have been something else altogether to kill someone to eat: no one would think that was the right thing to do.

Treating dead bodies with respect and reverence is absolutely essential. It's one thing that separates humans from other animals and keeps our society civilized. We can understand what death means and know that we and all our family and friends will eventually die. However, the fact remains that living beings are more important. The fact that so many people choose to donate their organs after their own deaths is probably the best evidence that most people agree that the living have to have more rights than the dead.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download