0:05 – 0:14
“I knew that if I didn’t get a transplant in time, my life was running out fairly rapidly.”
- Oli Lewington makes this claim in attempt to justify his future arguments through the reasoning of experience. Oli’s experience gives him a higher position in being able to say his opinion on making organ donation compulsory.
- The connotation of the sentence and he way Oli says it makes him seem unappreciative and a little ungrateful for the donation, which of course was voluntary.
- This is a consequential claim that says if a transplant doesn’t happen then the results will be life threatening.
“I suffered from Cystic Fibrosis which destroyed my lungs to a point where the doctors believed I only had two years left to live.”
- This is a consequential claim because he does not really tell us what Cystic Fibrosis actually is, but he tells us the result of it.
- Cystic Fibrosis caused the doctors to believe that he had only a certain amount of time left to live.
“Every single time the phone rang there was that brief moment in my head when I thought ‘Could this be the moment that I am going to be given a second chance at life?'”
- Oli makes this resemblance claim to help viewers understand how he constantly felt nervous and how a phone ring represented a second chance at life.
“For me and many other transplant recipients, the idea that our donors consciously chose to give us the gift of life after they had 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 Oli, this appears to be making an evaluation claim the shows the appreciation from a donor to a recipient.
- I have a problem with this quote because he attempts to talk for “many other transplant recipients” about how the idea of being given the optional gift of life is more important than getting a second chance.
- Another issue I have with this quote is that donors don’t know who they are giving their organs to, not necessarily because they are dead, and so there is absolutely no correlation to the recipient. The donor opted to give their organs away even if it meant that the recipient was ungrateful. This means it wasn’t a gift, but that it just so happened that someone was willing to offer their organs away at free will. I believe this alone destroys Oli’s entire argument.
“By switching to a system of presumed consent, we are taking away that element of a gift, and I wouldn’t want to change that for anything.”
- Are you kidding me?
- Wouldn’t want to change that for the sacrifice of your life? Or your parent’s lives, be it the case?
- This is a proposal claim against having a system of presumed organ donation consent.