The Meat Market
Alex Tabarrok
Picture Source: https://fee.org/people/alexander-tabarrok/
In this essay Alex Tabarrok argues that the skill to save lives of people lacks innovation which why people are dying. He specifically covers the issue of organ donation and shortages of donor organs. The drawbacks of proper medical treatment have made donation of organ a risky business. There is no such meter to measure the line of life and death. The lack of precise agreement on the matter of declaration of death can cause problem. The great paradox lies in the line of life and death. There is no agreed-upon way of determined answer to declare the death state. So the process of donation from the deceased one is a controversial topic. The paradox is significant because it keeps medical person in the risk of persecution.
In 1968, the criteria for brain death was published. It reduced crime and better automobile safety have led to fewer potential brain- dead donors than in the past. The criteria are: Organ is appropriate for the donation after cardiac death, no heartbeat for 2-5 minutes after the heart stops beating spontaneously.
Tobarrok defines expanded- criteria organs as organs that used to be considered unsuitable for transplant. The organs like kidneys from the people over the age of 60 or people who had various medical problems are more likely to fail than organs from younger, healthier donors. Such organs are being used due to the high demand.
The writer identifies Iran that has eliminated the transplant organ shortage by developing a legal financial compensation for organ donation. In this system, organs are not bought and sold at the bazaar. They have a nonprofit, volunteer-run Dialysis and Transplant Patients Association. It identifies potential donors and government pays donors $ 1,200 with one year of limited health-insurance coverage. In addition, working through Datpa, kidney recipients pay donors between $2,300 and 4,500. Likewise, charitable organizations provide remuneration to donors for recipients who cannot afford to pay.
From the title, The Meat Market I would have expected the essay to be about the butchery shop. The meat market and the consumption of animal meat in a literal sense. In contrast to the assumption, it is about the harvest of human organs. It was a bit shocking (and a little gross) to see that it was referring to human organs. This is probably the reaction that Tabarrok wanted is to grab the reader's intention and to make them want to read more.
Tabarrok assumes that his readers will be wary of the idea of "organ harvesting" from live donors, believing that the phrase will evoke imagery of horror movies in readers' minds. When he talks about countries that are paying those willing to donate, he likely assumes that the reader will associate paying for organs with the black market. These assumptions are fair given the presence of such tropes in American society. This introduction is quite effective because it prompts the reader to first acknowledge that they have these feelings about organ donation before Tabarrok slowly urges his audience to challenge those feelings.
Tabarrok believes that presumed consent could gain more support if it were tested on a state level first. He also suggests implementing incentives like payments toward funeral expenses or discounted drivers license fees for organ donors.
Tabarrok made the right decision in not elaborating on this topic. It is, as he said, an unsolvable debate; there's no way to know for sure where the line is between life and death. It's a philosophical question with an enormous amount of nuance that would be very difficult for him to try to address sufficiently.
Tabarrok understands the ways in which financial factors drive people and shape society in a way that physicians or members of the clergy may not. He looks at things more logically and focuses on the idea of supply and demand and uses this perspective to think of ways in which the organ donation system could be improved, which works well for him.
In paragraph 3, Tabarrok writes about how, in reaction to organ donation scarcity (cause), doctors routinely remove tissue from deceased patients without the consent of the patient or the patient's family (pg 608). In paragraph 11, Tabarrok discusses how Iran's legal payment system (cause) eliminated transplant organ shortage (effect) .
These two examples work well to help Tabarrok make his points. The first example helps to show just how scarce transplantable organs are in the US; the procedure he discusses is completely legal. The second example shows just how effective programs that provide compensation can be in increasing organ donation.
Tabarrok uses inductive reasoning to conclude that financial compensation is the key to solving the organ shortage. This conclusion does seem reasonable given the success that other countries have had and the estimates he cites from Becker and Elias.
I believe that the passive voice is appropriate in these paragraphs; I don't believe there is any need to rewrite them to be in the active voice.
In paragraph 4, Tabarrok writes in the passive voice that "innovation has occurred" in the US. The passive voice works well here because Tabarrok is not required to go into specifics as to whom championed these innovations or to use personal pronouns; such information is irrelevant to his point.
In paragraph 8, Tabarrok writes that "everyone is considered to be a potential organ donor..." This works well in the passive voice for a similar reason. The passive voice allows Tabarrok to talk about how citizens are viewed across countries with similar laws without having to use said countries as a subject, which can be tricky to word succinctly.
While I understand that Tabarrok likely intended this title to be an ironic attention-grabber, I don't believe it was an appropriate choice for his purpose. It could be seen as dehumanizing to those involved in the organ donation process and also makes the idea seem gruesome.
Thank you soo much☺️
ReplyDelete