0:07-0:12 – “…if I didn’t get a transplant in time, my life was running out fairly rapidly.”
Lewington makes a consequential claim by saying that a lack of transplant could cause his death. He also gives us the idea that his life is on a timer if he can’t find a doner.
I mostly agree, Kevin. He sounds more certain than could.
0:26-0:32 – “I suffered from cystic fibrosis which destroyed my lungs to a point where the doctors believed I only had about two years left to live.”
He keeps the claims fairly simple, stating that he had cystic fibrosis, a definitional claim, and explaining that it gave him only about two more years to live, a consequential claim made by his doctors.
I agree, a consequential claim based on many evaluation claims, I imagine.
0:42-0:45 – “…the average waiting time was 18 months.”
This is a very straight forward categorical claim about the time it takes to get a new set of lungs (a very odd thing to wait for if you think about it).
0:46-0:51 – “I passed the two year mark and realized I was living on borrowed time.”
He makes it clear that he has not only exceed the amount of time he was expected to live, but
he has also waited longer than 18 months and has yet to receive a new pair of lungs.
lose the he has
0:52-0:57 – “You’re essentially waiting for someone else to die so that you can have a second chance”
I almost totally agree with Oli on this. I would actually just remove “essentially” because you are literally waiting on the death of a person.
Yep. You’re also waiting for your body to heal itself. You’re waiting for a sudden medical breakthrough. Either way, you’re highly motivated to support better odds in every category.
1:21-1:36“…the idea that our donors consciously chose to give us the gift after they lost theirs is all important. It means the world to us to know that our donors wanted us to live on after they had died”
To be fair, in some cases the donors were probably thinking “Oh s***, I’m going to die!” rather than “I’m so glad I’m an organ donor”. I do think that it would be a great feeling when people are told that someone did consciously donate an organ, but if I was going to die, I don’t think I’d be too concerned with whether or not the donor knew he directly helped me.
Periods and commas ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks.
Hmmm. In Oli’s case, he knows his donor meant to give the lungs. I don’t see why he cares, but as a reader of your critical reading, I don’t care what you feel either, rude as that sounds. You I care about, Kevin, but here, both our feelings are irrelevant. Does Oli make a compelling case that:
1) Whether the donation is intentional is of interest to the recipient
2) The recipient’s preference matters to anyone but the recipient
3) The recipient would turn down an organ that was not voluntarily given?
4) The preference for volunteered organs, if it exists, should have any bearing in a proposal to make donation compulsory, or presumed?
1:38-1:43 – “By switching to a system of presumed consent, we’re taking away that element of a gift”
Now that’s not entirely true. Yes, it’s much less personal, but in the long run, it’d be much better to have a few more donated organ than to keep organ donation just slightly more personal. The family of the donor can still be thanked just as much and more people’s lives could be saved.
Again your point isn’t untrue, Kevin, but your argument isn’t critical. It’s a statement of your own preferences. There’s a better refutation than yours that involves the observation that the donors died without taking the simple precaution of “opting out” of donation. That sounds pretty much like a gift to me. Your response, please?