In the article “Death’s Waiting List” Sally Satel argues that the sale of organs should be allowed in the U.S. She hopes to convince the reader that the only guarantee of getting a transplant is to skip the wait list and just buy one. Although Satel makes a good argument she seems very biased and provides biased evidence to support her claims.
Satel claims that there is a problem with organ donations. In order to prove this she begins her argument by stating that the wait for a kidney in a big city, “is five to eight years and expected to double by 2010.”(2) Well, it is now 2012 and it still takes the same amount of time to get a kidney transplant. The time did not double like Satel claimed it would. As a matter a fact according to the U.S department of Health & Human Services only 11,329 people have to wait 5 or more years for a kidney transplant. This number is way less than the 70,000 Satel lead the reader to believe. The statistic evidence which satel provides seems legitimate but the assumptions she makes because of them do not quite add up. Satel then provides us with her story to show that there is in fact a problem. What she does not realize is that her argument is categorized as biased. Of course she thinks waiting for a transplant takes too long, if she’s been in the same position before. Her attitude towards donors does not help either. She wishes donors bodies were like Sears catalogs. Really? She then contradicts herself by saying it took her 1 year to get a kidney transplant. Whatever happened to 5-8 years? Where is satel from? and why does she get her organ transplant 5-8 times faster than someone living in a big city? A little more explanation of this could have saved this piece of evidence, but it probably would have benefit her argument more if she would’ve just left this part out. Satel sets the tone to her argument as concerned and assertive. She makes her argument seem as if it’s right and the U.S. government is wrong. She puts all the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document