If you died, what would you choose to do with your self? This is a question for which many people have different answers. These answers can range from donating their organs when the die, commodification (the use of selling human organs), or choosing not to for personal or religious reasons. In today's medical world, there is a great need for organs for transplant. Another question floating around is the receiving of financial incentives for donations of organs. David L. Kaserman asks and efficiently yet not convincingly addresses his viewpoint of pro-organ donation in his article, "Organ Shortage: Should The United Stated use financial incentives to increase organ donations?" (Kaserman). These two thoughts are often debated on ethical and moral grounds. The first question is a mere matter of person choice and morality, and the second is simply an economic one that asks if it is ethical to receive these economic rewards. In this article, I found it to be very informative, yet slightly slanted. By reviewing Kaserman's argument, I found that he developed his side of the argument credibly to the reader's appeals, while supporting his points effectively.
First off, the author informs the reader about the controversy behind organ donation and the use of incentives to reward donation. He examines the ethical value briefly as he introduces his points through rhetorical questions. This established a hook that stimulates the reader to the essay and points to come. Kaserman also opens with an appeal to pathos as he asks the reader to think whether or not the use of such incentives should be accepted as moral or ethical. By making the reader think and be aware of what issues are at hand, Kaserman allows himself a window of where he can openly discuss his points to convince readers of his opinion. .
When Kaserman begins to examine his first point, he states the issues at hand and states the different opinions of economists and citizens.
