Joanna MacKay Organ Sales Will Save Lives There are thousands of people dying to buy a kidney, and thousands of people dying to sell a kidney. It seems a match made in heaven. So why are we standing in the way? Governments should not ban the sale of human organs; they should regulate it. Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved. About 350,000 Americans suffer from end-stage renal disease1, a state of kidney disorder so advanced that the organ stops functioning altogether. There are no miracle drugs that can revive a failed kidney, leaving dialysis and kidney transplantation as the only possible treatments. Dialysis is harsh, expensive, and, worst of all, only temporary. Acting as an artificial kidney, dialysis mechanically filters the blood of a patient. It works, but not well. With treatment sessions lasting three hours, several times a week, those dependent on dialysis are, in a sense, shackled to a machine for the rest of their lives. Adding excessive stress to the body, dialysis causes patients to feel increasingly faint and tired, usually keeping them from work and other normal activities. Kidney transplantation, on the other hand, is the closest thing to a cure that anyone could hope for. Today the procedure is both safe and reliable, causing few complications. With better technology for confirming tissue matches and new anti-rejection drugs, the surgery is simple. But those hoping for a new kidney have high hopes indeed. In the year 2000 alone, 2583 Americans died while waiting for a kidney transplant; worldwide the number of deaths is around 50,000.2 With the sale of organs outlawed in almost every country, the number of living donors willing to part with a kidney for free is small. When no family member is a suitable candidate for donation, the patient is placed on a deceased donors list, relying on the organs from people dying of old age or accidents. The list is long. With over 60,000 people in line in the United States alone, the average wait for a cadaverous kidney is ten long years. Daunted by the low odds, some have turned to an alternative solution: purchasing kidneys on the black market. For about $150,000, they can buy a fresh kidney from a healthy, living donor. There are no lines, no waits. Arranged through a broker, the entire procedure is carefully planned out. The buyer, seller, surgeons, and nurses are flown to a predetermined hospital in a foreign country. The operations are performed, and then all are flown back to their respective homes. There is no follow-up, no paperwork to sign. The illegal kidney trade is attractive not only because of the promptness, but also because of the chance at a living donor. An organ from a cadaver will most likely be old or damaged, estimated to function for about ten years at most. A kidney from a living donor can last over twice as long. Once a person’s transplanted cadaverous kidney stops functioning, he or she must get back on th ...

1. Joanna MacKay
Organ Sales Will Save Lives
There are thousands of people dying to buy a kidney, and
thousands of
people dying to sell a kidney. It seems a match made in heaven.
So why are we
standing in the way? Governments should not ban the sale of
human organs;
they should regulate it. Lives should not be wasted; they should
be saved.
About 350,000 Americans suffer from end-stage renal disease1,
a state of
kidney disorder so advanced that the organ stops functioning
altogether. There
are no miracle drugs that can revive a failed kidney, leaving
dialysis and kidney
transplantation as the only possible treatments.
Dialysis is harsh, expensive, and, worst of all, only temporary.
Acting as
an artificial kidney, dialysis mechanically filters the blood of a
patient. It works,
but not well. With treatment sessions lasting three hours,
several times a week,
those dependent on dialysis are, in a sense, shackled to a
machine for the rest of
their lives. Adding excessive stress to the body, dialysis causes
patients to feel
increasingly faint and tired, usually keeping them from work
and other normal
activities.
Kidney transplantation, on the other hand, is the closest thing to
a cure

2. that anyone could hope for. Today the procedure is both safe
and reliable,
causing few complications. With better technology for
confirming tissue matches
and new anti-rejection drugs, the surgery is simple.
But those hoping for a new kidney have high hopes indeed. In
the year
2000 alone, 2583 Americans died while waiting for a kidney
transplant;
worldwide the number of deaths is around 50,000.2 With the
sale of organs
outlawed in almost every country, the number of living donors
willing to part
with a kidney for free is small. When no family member is a
suitable candidate
for donation, the patient is placed on a deceased donors list,
relying on the
organs from people dying of old age or accidents. The list is
long. With over
60,000 people in line in the United States alone, the average
wait for a cadaverous
kidney is ten long years.
Daunted by the low odds, some have turned to an alternative
solution:
purchasing kidneys on the black market. For about $150,000,
they can buy a
fresh kidney from a healthy, living donor. There are no lines, no
waits. Arranged
through a broker, the entire procedure is carefully planned out.
The buyer, seller,
surgeons, and nurses are flown to a predetermined hospital in a
foreign country.
The operations are performed, and then all are flown back to

3. their respective
homes. There is no follow-up, no paperwork to sign.
The illegal kidney trade is attractive not only because of the
promptness,
but also because of the chance at a living donor. An organ from
a cadaver will
most likely be old or damaged, estimated to function for about
ten years at most.
A kidney from a living donor can last over twice as long. Once
a person’s
transplanted cadaverous kidney stops functioning, he or she
must get back on
the donors list, this time probably at the end of the line. A
transplanted living
kidney, however, could last a person a lifetime.
While there may seem to be a shortage of kidneys, in reality
there is a
surplus. In third world countries, there are people willing to do
anything for
money. In such extreme poverty these people barely have
enough to eat, living in
shacks and sleeping on dirt floors. Eager to pay off debts, they
line up at
hospitals, willing to sell a kidney for about $1000. The money
will go towards
food and clothing, or perhaps to pay for a family member’s
medical operation.
Whatever the case, these people need the money.
There is certainly a risk in donating a kidney, but this risk is not
great
enough to be outlawed. Millions of people take risks to their
health everyday for
money, or simply for enjoyment. As explained in The Lancet,
“If the rich are free
to engage in dangerous sports for pleasure, or dangerous jobs

4. for high pay, it is
difficult to see why the poor who take the lesser risk of kidney
selling for greater
rewards… should be thought so misguided as to need saving
from themselves.”3
Studies have shown that a person can live a healthy life with
only one kidney.
While these studies might not apply to the poor living under
strenuous
conditions in unsanitary environments, the risk is still theirs to
take. These
people have decided that their best hope for money is to sell a
kidney. How can
we deny them the best opportunity they have?
Some claim that the selling of organs is morally wrong and
violates “the
dignity of the human person”4, but this is a belief professed by
healthy and
affluent individuals. Are we sure that the peasants of third
world countries
agree? The morals we hold are not absolute truths. We have the
responsibility to
protect and help those less fortunate, but we cannot let our own
ideals cloud the
issues at hand.
In a legal kidney transplant, everybody gains except the donor.
The
doctors and nurses are paid for the operations; the patient
receives a new kidney,
but the donor receives nothing. Sure the donor will have the
warm, uplifting
feeling associated with helping a fellow man, but this is not
enough of a reward
for most people to part with a piece of themselves. In an ideal
world the average

5. person would be altruistic enough to donate a kidney with no
questions asked.
The real world, however, is run by money. We pay men for
donating sperm, and
we pay women for donating ova, yet we expect others to give
away an entire
organ for no compensation. If the sale of organs were allowed,
people would
have more of an incentive to help save the life of a stranger.
While many argue that legalizing the sale of organs will exploit
the poorer
people of third world countries, the truth of the matter is that
this is already the
ase. Even with the threat of a $50,000 fine and five years in
prison, the current
ban has not been successful in preventing illegal kidney
transplants. The kidneys
of the poor are still benefiting only the rich. While the sellers
do receive most of
the money promised, the sum is too small to have any real
impact on their
financial situation. A study in India discovered that in the long
run, organ sellers
suffer. 5 In the illegal kidney trade nobody has the interests of
the seller at heart.
After selling a kidney, their state of living actually worsens.
While the $1000 pays
off one debt, it is not enough to relieve the donor of the extreme
poverty that
placed him in debt in the first place.
These impoverished people do not need stricter and harsher
penalties
against organ selling to protect them, but quite the opposite. If
the sale of organs
were made legal, it could be regulated and closely monitored by

6. the government
and other responsible organizations. In a regulated system,
education would be
incorporated into the application process. Before deciding to
donate a kidney, the
seller should know the details of the operation and any hazards
involved. Only
with the understanding of the long-term physical health risks
can a person make
an informed decision.
Regulation would ensure that the seller is fairly compensated.
In the
illegal kidney trade, surgeons collect most of the buyer’s money
in return for
putting their careers on the line. The brokers arranging the
procedure also
receive a modest cut, typically around ten percent. If the entire
practice were
legalized, more of the money could be directed towards the
person who needs it
most, the seller. By eliminating the middleman and allowing the
doctors to settle
for lower prices, a regulated system would benefit all those in
need of a kidney,
both rich and poor. According to Finkel, the money that would
otherwise be
spent on dialysis treatment could not only cover the charge of a
kidney
transplant at no cost to the recipient, but also reward the donor
with as much as
$25,0006. This money could go a long way for people living in
the poverty of
third world countries.
Critics fear that controlling the lawful sale of organs would be
too
difficult, but could it be any more difficult than controlling the

7. unlawful sale of
organs? Governments have tried to eradicate the kidney market
for decades and
to no avail. Maybe it is time to try something else. When
“desperately wanted
goods” are made illegal, history has shown that there is more
opportunity for
corruption and exploitation than if those goods were allowed.7
(Just look at the
effects of the prohibition of alcohol, for example.) Legalization
of organ sales
would give governments the authority and the opportunity to
closely monitor
these live kidney operations.
Regulation would also protect the buyers. Because of the need
for secrecy,
the current illegal method of obtaining a kidney has no
contracts and therefore
no guarantees. Since what they are doing is illegal, the buyers
have nobody to
turn to if something goes wrong. There is nobody to point the
finger at, nobody
to sue. While those participating in the kidney market are
breaking the law, they
have no other choice. Without a new kidney, end-stage renal
disease will soon
kill them. Desperate to survive, they are forced to take the only
offer available. It
seems immoral to first deny them the opportunity of a new
kidney and then to
leave them stranded at the mercy of the black market. Without
laws regulating
live kidney transplants, these people will be subject to possibly
dangerous and
hazardous procedures. Instead of turning our backs, we have the

8. power to
ensure that these operations are done safely and efficiently for
both the recipient
and the donor.
Those suffering from end-stage renal disease would do anything
for the
chance at a new kidney, take any risk or pay any price. There
are other people so
poor that the sale of a kidney is worth the profit. Try to tell
someone that he has
to die from kidney failure because selling a kidney is morally
wrong. Then turn
around and try to tell another person that he has to remain in
poverty for that
same reason. In matters of life and death, our stances on moral
issues must be
reevaluated. If legalized and regulated, the sale of human
organs would save
lives. Is it moral to sentence thousands to unnecessary deaths?

9. work side
Finkel, Michael. “This Little Kidney Went to Market.” New
York Times Magazine.
New York: May 27, 2001.
Goyal, M., Mehta, R., Schneiderman, L., and Sehgal, A.
“Economic and Health
Consequences of Selling a Kidney in India.” Journal of the
American Medical
Association. October 2, 2002. 288, 13, 1589-92.
Radcliffe-Richards, J., Daar, A.S., Guttmann, R.D., Hoffenberg,
R., Kennedy, I.,
Lock, M., Sells, R.A., and Tilney, N. “The Case for Allowing
Kidney
Sales.” The Lancet. June 27, 1998. 351, 9120, 1950-2.
Rogers 2
Rogers 1
Engl 130
Rogers
Reader Response + Research
An important part of your academic writing experience is
developing your skills as a critical reader and researcher. A
critical reader isn’t someone who has a negative opinion about
everything; by “critical” we mean rigorously thoughtful—a
reader who engages each text with an open, curious mind. A
critical reader takes notes as she reads; she asks questions of
the text; she challenges the assertions made by an author; she

10. questions the source of any claim. In short, a critical reader
“tests” a text; the act of reading becomes a dialogue, or
exchange, between text and reader. A critical reader takes these
active learning skills with her to the desk when she writes, and
becomes a more thoughtful, engaged, and rigorous writer of
texts.
A critical researcher looks for current material with which to
further discuss, emphasize, and/or argue his assertion. This
self-directed inquiry is paramount to critical learning as
evidence in one’s writing.
For most class periods devoted to a reading (or readings) from
The Norton Field Guide to Writing, or the readings on
Blackboard, you are either required to typewrite an entry for
your Reader’s Journal, (RJE) or a Reader Response + Research
short paper. Each RR+R should be approximately 400-500
words long (about a full page and a half of typewritten, double-
spaced pages).
On RR+R days when two readings are assigned, select one
reading from those listed on the schedule for your response.
You are, of course, still required to read, and be able to discuss,
both assigned readings.
In each RR+R, record a thoughtful response to the essay,
addressing an issue of substance. This might have to do with the
particular rhetorical mode we are studying (e.g., narration and
description, definition, argument, and so on). Or it might be a
considered reflection on what you liked or disliked about the
text, what questions it raised, or what the text made you think
of, and why. Please, avoidmereplotsummary or simplistic
condensation. Select one or maybe two interesting elements of
the text in question and record your thoughts and responses.
Research a current (within the last two years for a pop culture
source, ten years for a scholarly article) issue that is relevant to
the essay at hand. Link this material critically to your journal
response.
Given the length of the entry, it is important to focus on a
specific, selected element of interest; don’t try to account for

11. the entire reading.
That having been said, your RR+R should reflect your own
reading and research practices; it is a space for you to express
your own personality and opinions. Feel free to use the first
person and to adopt a personal, perhaps slightly more informal
tone in your entries.
I will be looking for the following:
· A 400-500 word entry for each day of RR+R assigned reading;
read both essays but choose only one essay for your response.
· For each entry, include the author’s name, the title of the
work, and the date assigned for class. Also include full
citation information for additional sources. Use proper in-text
citations.
· A thoughtful reflection on your reading of the piece—evidence
that you have “engaged” the text.
· The avoidance of gratuitous plot summary or condensation.
· Research to support your reflection/argument.
· Each entry should be typewritten, double-spaced, and free
from excessive mechanical and technical errors. Follow MLA
2009 guidelines regarding format. Do not skip lines between
paragraphs. Include a running head which always includes the
page number.
Please also read the following material for further suggestions
and examples for writing reader responses:
http://trccwritingcenter.pbworks.com/w/page/9356011/Reader-
Response-Papers
http://www.ehow.com/info_8644592_rules-writing-reading-
response-essay.html
Pay close attention especially to the material in the CAUTION
box on this page:
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl0310link/readerresp
onse.htm
Here is a link that shows you sample first sentences—some do’s
and don’ts:
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl0310/Sample%20firs
t%20sentences.htm

12. The following is a sample Reader Response + Research paper,
which will be double-spaced, in Times New Roman, font size
12. Please note that no extra lines are skipped. No bold. Title
of reading is in quotes. The comma is inside the quote. The
date is in MLA 2009 format. There will be a running head.
(COPY the structure for your own RR+R. I have a shredder and
am not afraid to make bedding for the hamster cage out of any
RR+Rs that are not ready for me to assess.)
NOTE: Make sure your header has your last name, not mine,
and that it lists page 1 as page 1, etc…
Also: We are using a different textbook than the one included
here. Make sure that you use the NFG citation example for your
own RR+R, (double-spaced).
In-text citations (itc)
· When citing from our text, use the author’s name, not NFG.
· “Romance, not marriage, is the woman’s goal” in advertising
just a decade later, highlighting the author’s point that
emancipation has altered the emphasis in the marketing of
women’s toiletries (Lantry 44).
Works Cited (You will have at least two entries, one from the
original essay in our text and one from the source you find that
supports/counters the argument of the assigned essay.)
· When citing from our text, use the following format, inserting
the author’s name, essay title, and correct pages, (it will be
double-spaced in your paper).
· Noe, Denise. “Parallel Worlds: The Surprising Similarities
(and Differences) of Country-and-
Western and Rap.” Ed. Richard C. Bullock. Norton Field Guide
to Writing. 2nd ed. New
York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2010. 598-603. Print.
Lastname, Firstname. “Title of Essay.” Ed. Richard C. Bullock.
Norton Field Guide to Writing. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton
and Co., 2013. 598-603. Print.
Sample based on:
http://owl.cuny.edu:7778/portal/page/portal/oira/Assessment/Fa
culty%20Handbook%20CATW.pdf

13. Firstname Lastname
Instructor Linda Rogers
English 130
RR+R1
12 September 2013
Kalle Lasn, “Hype,” 13 September 2013
I was hooked from the opening sentence of Kalle Lasn’s,
“Hype,” and as I finished, I couldn’t resist a small internal
cheer. I believe most of us would agree with the author’s
sentiments, in that advertisements are truly the “most…toxic of
the mental pollutants” (217). Who doesn’t fly through the
channels when there is a break in the televised program to
escape this garbage; who wants to be clobbered with the endless
commercials or even infomercials?
The statistics that Lasn quotes are staggering: in North
America, we are exposed to more than two-, or some say, three-
thousand marketing ads/messages each day. It means that our
minds are continually bombarded with messages of
consumerism, courtesy of corporate America.
Our lives are saturated with ads occupying not only T.V., radio,
and online, but every square inch of viewing space. When I
flew home over break, I was not pleased when I flipped down
the seatback tray table on the airplane only to see an ad for
Yoplait yogurt. All I wanted was a clear space to set my
notebook while I jotted some thoughts. I ended up closing the
tray table and balancing the notebook on my knee because the
thought of strawberry yogurt kept infiltrating my mind. It is
enough to make one scream.
“The increase in commercial advertising,” according to Lasn,
“has happened so steadily and relentlessly that we haven’t quite
woken up to the absurdity of it all” (218). Yet I believe the tide

14. is turning. Journalist Gary Stroller writes in USA Today that
even though ads “add up for airlines,…some fliers say it’s too
much.” Deemed a captive audience by the airline industry,
passengers are growing more intolerant of the excessive
advertisements that seem to fill every available space and
flashing screen. Most travelers, whether flying for business or
pleasure, believe that the only suitable location for ads onboard
the airplane is the in-flight magazines—individuals can then
choose whether or not to peruse these commercial
advertisements. Frequent fliers may not be able to avoid this
new barrage of ads in-flight, but can certainly boycott the
offending companies. Marketing consultant Bruce Silverman, a
former creative director at three of the largest ad agencies
insists, “There is already too much advertising clutter in the
world.” Silverman “truly believe[s] advertisers who choose to
intrude on airline passengers are likely to lose — not gain —
customers” (qtd. in Stoller). More ads equal less patience on
the part of consumers.
Kalle Lasn fears that “there is nowhere to run. No one is exempt
and no one will be spared” (221). I flipped up that airplane tray
to avert my eyes and will do the same every time I cruise the
yogurt aisle at the supermarket. Please tell the powers-that-be
that I might not be able to avoid seeing their ads “in the
friendly skies” but I will let my wallet do the talking every time
I skip over the Yoplait.
Works Cited
Lasn, Halle. “Hype.” Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on
Popular Culture for Writers. Ed. Sonia Maasik and Jack
Solomon. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2003. 217-20.
Print.
Stoller, Gary. “Ads Add up for Airlines, but Some Fliers Say
It’s Too Much.” Usatoday.com. USA Today, 17 Oct. 2011. Web.
16 Jan. 2012.
AGAIN: Make sure that you use our actual textbook’s citation,
listing the essayist’s name as the author.

15. Make sure the pages are the pages for that particular essay. See
the beginning of this requirements document to see the NFG
citation.
MORE TIPS FOR A HYPOTHETICAL RR+R:
Let’s say that one of the two essays we read for the RR+Rs is an
article comparing country and western music with rap, saying
that the two types of music are more similar than they are
different. If you choose to write about that essay and not the
other essay (which you still must read), you could then choose
to:
1. agree with the author, (Denise Noe), that these two types of
music are indeed similar and then find another article or book
that supports this
or
2. disagree with the author and find another article or book that
counters this by saying that rap and country/western music are
not alike at all.
But know that she is not just talking about the music—her essay
touches on some deep social issues. You would read the essay
closely before you made your decision on supporting her claim
or countering her position. Then you’d go look for others to
assist you as experts/authorities to cite in your argument.
Look for reputable, reliable, and current sources, (we’ll cover
that in class). Introduce the author and his/her expertise in a
signal phrase. Remember to include how/why this person gets
to support/counter this argument. And always explain again in
your own words how it all ties in to the big picture. P.I.E.
Sample paragraph from a longer RR+R on this music topic.
This is just a small piece of a larger essay:
Acclaimed writer and journalist, Denise Noe believes that one

16. of the major reasons that causes mainstream U.S.A. to reject rap
is race. Whites expect angry messages when they listen to rap
music. They believe that years of oppression and inner-city life
will be reflected in artists’ rap (Noe 600). And many blacks
listen to the songs, hoping for an uplifting message but are also
discouraged when black artists glorify drugs, sex, and violence.
Unfortunately, as political blogger Jeff Mendelman so
accurately paraphrased rapper Mos Def for Policy-mic, “Rap
music will reflect and analyze wherever we’re at in America. If
we’re virtuous, so too will rap. If we remain a misogynistic,
malevolent, materialistic society, so too will rap.” Rap music
will continue to receive negative publicity as long as it reflects
the harsh realities of street life for a huge portion of this
country. When inner city life is no longer a fight for daily
survival, perhaps rap will evolve into something wholly
different than what it is now, a mirror we’re too afraid to
acknowledge that reflects our own image—black, white, or
other.
Works Cited
Mendelman, Jeff. “From Jay-Z to Kanye West: Does Rap Music
Promote Bad Values?” PolicyMic.com. N.p., 12 Feb. 2012.
Web. 13 Feb. 2013.
Noe, Denise. “Parallel Worlds: The Surprising Similarities (and
Differences) of Country-and-
Western and Rap.” Ed. Richard C. Bullock. Norton Field Guide
to Writing. 2nd ed. New
York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2010. 598-603. Print.

17. Again, do not use my opening line or sentiment. Get your own
hook.
This is the citation for the 2nd edition of our textbook. Just
replace: 2nd with 3rd, 2010 with 2013, the author’s name,
essay title, and page numbers.
Your last name, not
mine.

18. Use the actual page numbers of the essay..