Suppose that you got into a car accident that turned you into a vegetative being for the rest of your life. This is a horrible event to imagine, but what is even worse, is that while you are in this condition, certain doctors would like to be able to take your organs without your consent. These professionals are advocating for the medical field to abandon the dead donor rule. This bioethical rule guarantees patients the security of knowing that they have control of their bodies until they physically decease. In the article, "Death Be Not Political," the author takes a firm stance in supporting the dead donor rule. By defining death and combining ethical, emotional and logical appeals, the author demonstrates the negative implications of deserting this rule.
The article's author, Howard Trachtman, starts off with some logical facts. He defines death in clear scientific terms, and calls it one of life's inevitable "Big Three," which include birth, death and taxes. The author supports his case that "persons in a persistent vegetative state are not dead" by giving the biological definition of death(Trachtman 31). This forces readers to look at passing away in logical and scientific terms. Trachtman and his audience are able to see eye-to-eye about death because he puts it in scientific terminology that is difficult to contradict. The action of dying becomes concrete and has no room for interpretation. .
As readers get into the "meat" of the paper, that author takes a bolder position against the dead donor rule. By this time, the author has supported his stance with logical claims and has gained credibility and trust by the readers. Trachtman now begins to use a plethora of ethical appeals to convey his message more clearly. The author associates people with a "diminished quality of life" to people who have been considered figuratively dead in the past, such as impoverished people and women unable to bear children (Trachtman 31).
