Organ Donating Organs: A Case Study

The first paper appoints the issue of not legalizing the payment of donating organs. The National Kidney Foundation does not believe that the payment for organ donating will increase donations. The foundation wants to remain committed to helping people with donations. They believe that if it is legalized then disadvantaged citizens would take advantage of this opportunity that should only be done for the great feeling of it, and not the money. Sally Satel believes that organ trafficking should be stopped by legalizing some type of donor rewards. Satel believes that if legalized then people would give more kidneys or any other organ to help people on the waiting list. She also believes that certain incentives should be given and not just straight cash. Some of those incentives are; income tax credit, tuition vouchers for ones children, and a contribution to a retirement fund that would not be able to be touched until a certain age.

In the first paper, there is no given single author, only a group author.
The paper uses statistical examples in order to prove its point. One example is that 92% of people said that money would not have persuaded them to donate their organs. The NKF uses logical facts to support their claim of not legalizing payment for organs. The NKF states that they oppose efforts in legalizing payments for organs because it is stated in the Title III of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. The second paper is an example of pathos. Satel uses her feelings and emotional impact of what she went through in order to prove her point. She knew the feeling of receiving an organ donation, so she felt that if there was a reward for helping out then more and more people would get the same feeling that she does. Satel uses her beliefs to write and persuade the readers into believing what she believes. She believes that if someone takes a high risk for someone else then they should be rewarded for their