Organ Donation- Nicole Clark

Komal Adris claims organ donation should not be compulsory due to religious reasons. She believes that you should not force people to donate their organs and they should do it on their own terms. People deciding on their own terms and knowing that they will save a life is way more powerful than forcing someone. I disagree with her opinion because I feel that you are saving a life by donating your organs and you should be an organ donor no matter what. The bottom line is that you are saving someone in the world that desperately needs help. Organs are being wasted if not donated. Those organs could be used to save an innocent person who is struggling everyday.

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-organ-donation-be-made-compulsory/komal-adris?autoplay=true

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nicole Clark, Organ Donor Claims. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Organ Donation- Nicole Clark

  1. davidbdale says:

    Thank you, Nicole. I appreciate your early post, which gives me an opportunity to clarify what I want in a critical reading.

    Komal Adris does a lot more than just suggest that people give organs on their own terms. She makes many interesting claims along the way which it is your job to investigate for clarity and persuasiveness.

    Your response is more of a rebuttal essay than a critical reading of the argument presented. If you have one hour to do a second draft (I’ve given everyone a time limit in the assignment details), pull apart Adris’s claims a bit and see if you can find more claims hidden in them, many unstated.

    Where possible, produce a transcript of Adris’s statements as I did in the Model: Kidney Season on Death Row. For example:

    00:34/01:29
    “In the Muslim faith there’s a verse that says ‘You can’t break the bones of the dead.’ Literalists have said, ‘Well, if you can’t break the bones of the dead, then clearly you can’t cut up the body to actually harvest organs.’ “

    She compares two Koranic verses she finds to be in conflict and promotes one as more essential than the other. Her brief piece is rich with argument and claims. Your job is not to rush past these claims to summarize an overall position (and refute it). Instead, your job is to pick at the little claims to see if they add up to anything like a coherent argument.

    Thank you again, Nicole, for allowing me to respond to a draft while the deadline is pending and the assignment is still active. I couldn’t do this job without you.

    Be sure to title your post “Critical Reading—Author Name” and post it to “A06: Critical Reading.”

  2. Pingback: A06: Critical Reading | Dubitability

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s