How Organ Recipients Are Chosen?
It seems counterintuitive that a small child would not get first priority on an organ recipient list over an older, bigger bodied recipient. the question at hand is not why a child would get first dib’s on a kidney over an old man, but why there is a question of age in the first place? A child has an whole life to live. The converation on Sarah Murnaghan’s case brings up A moral issue that is very difficult to assess.
Sarah Murnaghan was put on the adult waiting list two years before she finally received a lung transplant. The controversy, and uproar about her situation begins with those who feel Sarah should have had higher priority due to her age, and being deathly ill. Others who argued this issue felt that giving an adult lung to a child is similar to a waste… considering the fact that giving a child an oversized organ (especially a lung) would have substantially lower odds of success over those who could benefit more.
The practical solution cannot come down to morality. The moral liberties of society, and the most intuitive answer to the issue would suggest that the lung should go to the child. In fact, The Murnaghan family believed this to be true whole heartedly to the point of taking legal action. Suing Health and Human Recourses, and winning the case providing their so deserving daughter of a lung.
How though? if this is the case, why can’t everyone just sue the hospitals, cause controversy, and magically get what they “deserve”. As a society, we are not capable of deciding who is allowed/has more priority over another person. If I was a 40 year old male who was on the list for 3 years, waiting painfully to acquire a transplant, and I was up on the list, I would expect to be the priority. Expecting this, and hearing about Sarah’s case would make me feel cheated. in fact, I’m sure that’s how most of the people before/after/as deserving as her would feel.
Free Heroin to Battle Addiction
It seems counterintuitive to continuously supply a highly dependent Heroin addict Heroin. A drug that ruins peoples lives, and not only that, ruins the environment by leaving used needles and equipment around, or passing out/dying somewhere in an alley should not be readily administered. The War on heroin seems to have no solution, and if even the law cannot quell the ongoing heroin epidemic, what can?
The City of Vancouver may have found their “solution” to the problem of heroin addiction. Simply taking in addicts, supplying them with clean materials to use, giving them heroin, and providing them with a safe place to do it in… under the supervision of a nurse of course. This program is ran in a safe injection site called “Insite” where addicts can shoot up as they would love to do, but not only freely, but where they cant get in trouble by the police. A sort of safe haven for heavily dependent slaves to a drug that is now safer to partake in their unhealthiest habit!
Vancouver’s solution is Ironic. Readily supplying an addict on a regular basis is not defeating the addiction, but I’m assuming that the upmost task/goal is not to prevent the addiction, but to prevent the addiction from ruining the environment around the addict. Since this seems like one of the only imaginable steps due to the fact that the legal pressure does not compel addicts from shooting up, providing them with a cleaner, more public friendly way of doing it is a good first step. I say “public friendly” because it keeps the addiction epidemic out of the public eye. The heroin epidemic will never solve its self. The only step to be taken is getting it off the streets, and into safe injection sites. It seems counterintuitive, but eliminating some effects is better than eliminating none.
This programs arrival into Vancouver dates back to 2008, and has “origins in Europe with countries like Switzerland, Germany, Britain and the Netherlands all administering their own version of the program in Vancouver” according to a detailed report in Time back in 2009. With more studies, experience, and results, we as a society could make a change on the horrible epidemic. For now, getting it away from the public eye and sort of hiding the problem by making it clinical will do.
It seems counterintuitive to expose the awful tragedies that happens to people by taking photographs exploiting those at their weakest. Getting that perfect shot may not always be so ethical, and in fact, in most cases it isn’t. exposing images of those crying, dead bodies, or anything that could be helped by anything other than taking a photo is very disrespectful, and corrupt.
The way I view it, is in favor of those who don’t have a clue what’s going on in the first place. Going through an unexplainable disaster, and then after having someone who (for the most part) does not care about the outcome of their muse is disrespectful. Situations like the Haitian police shooting and killing a 15 year old girl on accident while firing warning shots, and photographers rushing to the scene to get the best shot of the tragedy is completely unethical.
I’m sure many more photos of distressed victims of unexplainable tragedies are out there on the internet. Those in the pictures most likely do not get any compensation for the picture as well, while potentially millions of people view the post.
My position is not with against the pictures, but the photographers who witness and recorded the event. Its just like a paparazzi, getting the best photo while perusing it in places they should not be.
Rowan Counterintuitive 
This is a good first draft, Dude. Exactly as it should, your summary gives the impression that you are arguing a position first-hand instead of merely reporting what someone else had to say on the topic of organ transplants. Your tone is persuasive. Whatever you may believe personally, your essay indicates a firmly held perspective.
Now, if I may, I want to offer some critical observations and recommendations for your revision.
1. You depend too often on negative claims which confuse readers about your actual position.
—It seems counterintuitive that a small child would not get first priority on an organ recipient list
—The question at hand is not why a child would get first dibs
—The question is why there is a question of age in the first place.
—The practical solution cannot come down to morality.
—Why can’t everyone just sue the hospitals?
—As a society, we are not capable of deciding who is allowed/has more priority over another person.
2. You assume your readers are familiar with the original source. We’re not. You need to provide us with the background information needed to understand the situation. For example, we don’t know Sarah’s age, and your first two paragraphs as a result are terribly ambiguous.
—The conversation on Sarah Murnaghan’s case brings up a moral issue that is very difficult to assess. (What conversation? What makes Sarah’s case a moral issue?)
—Sarah Murnaghan was put on the adult waiting list two years before she finally received a lung transplant. (So, what’s the problem? Was she an adult who waited two years because children got lungs first? Or was she a child who for some reason was placed on the adult list?)
—The controversy, and uproar about her situation begins with those who feel Sarah should have had higher priority due to her age, and being deathly ill. (When you say “due to her age” instead of telling us how old she was, you are still withholding the essential information.)
—Others who argued this issue felt that giving an adult lung to a child is similar to a waste… considering the fact that giving a child an oversized organ (especially a lung) would have substantially lower odds of success over those who could benefit more. (Sorry. We still don’t know. Was she the child recipient of an adult lung? Or was she an adult who was passed over for an adult lung that went instead to a child?)
SOLUTION FOR 1.
Rephrase Negative Claims as Positive Claims.
—It seems counterintuitive that an adult WOULD GET FIRST PRIORITY on an organ recipient list (when logic would dictate we preserve the younger life first).
—The problem at hand is that as a society we make inconsistent choices based on unclear rules.
—The most practical solution might seem to be at odds with morality.
—Deciding where organs go based on who sues who is the worst possible procedure.
—Since there will never be consensus on who “deserves” an organ more, decisions should be made on the basis of . . . (which recipient is most likely to survive the transplant) (who will live longest with a new organ) (who is most likely to die first if not given a new organ) something.
PUNCTUATION CORRECTED
1. Periods and commas ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks:
—magically get what they “deserve.”
2. Hyphens missing from adjective phrases:
—If I was a 40-year-old male
3. Question Marks for Questions:
—Why can’t everyone just sue the hospitals, cause controversy, and magically get what they “deserve”?
4. No Question Marks for Declarations:
—The question is why there is a question of age in the first place.
IS THIS THE FIRST OF THREE?
You probably meant to get a head start on the assignment by posting just one of the three Summaries the assignment calls for. Just checking that you’ll be producing two more.
This would be a good time for you to tell me if you appreciate this degree of feedback, find it helpful, or are overwhelmed and discouraged by it, DudeInTheBack.
Please respond. Thanks!
LikeLike