Critical Reading- Rick Casario

“Should organ donation be made compulsory?”
Komal Adris
“When it comes to issues of death, and the here-after, you don’t really want to take a risk. So you want to be pretty sure that it’s fairly kosher.”

Adris introduces herself and states that she’s a muslim and has recently signed up for the organ donation after her friend was in desperate need for a kidney.

“In the Muslim faith there is a verse that says “You can’t break the bones of the dead””.

She continues by saying literalists have made an evaluation claim that if you can’t break the bones of the dead, than you clearly can not destroy the body to harvest organs.

dead.'” (you should ask why these two rules apply)


Yes, she does, Rick, but what do you make of this claim? Does she make it because she concurs with its judgment? Does it qualify as effective argument? Does it depend or not on whether bones need literally to be broken to remove organs?

“It’s not a very practical religion. So its about recontextualizing the messages… one side is don’t break the bones of the dead… the other side is saving a life is like saving the whole of humanity.”

Is there ever a practical religion? I feel her claim about the Muslim faith’s practicality is a consequential claim because Islamic belief disdains organ donations, she is going against her faith.

Interesting. I think she might have said, “Islam’s a very practical. . . .” not, “It’s not a very practical . . . .” Your rhetorical question about practicality is clever, but it doesn’t amount to a claim. The purpose here is not so much to argue with the speaker as to evaluate the persuasiveness of her claims. She finds in the Koran verses that help her craft a practical approach to donation that she feels is justified by her religion. What claims does that argument contain? To what degree are they reasonable and accurate?
Also one of the claims that she argues with the translation of the breaking of bones, the “saving one life is like saving the whole of humanity” is a claim of resemblance. Thats quite a large claim.

Blue Note: I don’t follow the syntax of the blue part at all.

It’s a metaphorical or poetic claim, isn’t it, Rick? We don’t expect viewers to believe that the two are equivalent.

Adris says she does not agree with the idea of a compulsory donation system. Adris says that more specifically she does not agree with making people feel “emotionally blackmailed” to sign up. It’s far more powerful to sign up than just to forget to un-sign yourself from the register. This is a very interesting point. Although the compulsory system would be believed to save more lives, it is a significantly more powerful statement to actually have someone willingly give you their heart, literally. Her claim is evaluation because she is stating the power of giving the gift of life than just being required to give it up at the end.

Avoid yourself: Registering as a donor sends a far more powerful message than forgetting to opt out of the system.

Avoid you: receiving a heart that’s been freely given is a significantly more powerful statement.

Blue Note: Are you trying to avoid saying, “I believe the compulsory system would save more lives,” Rick? Try this: “Though it seems clear the compulsory system would save more lives . . . . “

I understand Komal Adris’ point. Her stance is that she wants to support her friend but is in a way looked down on inside of her religion for breaking a sacred value of post-life desecration of the body.

I didn’t listen today, but I don’t recall hearing her sound the discrimination note at all, Rick.

Adris’ use of the comment of religion’s practicality was a type of segway into that even though she believed her religion, she still wanted to willingly help her friend but that others of the Islamic faith may not feel the same and that “emotional blackmail” to sign up was wrong.

you’ve made these claims before, Rick. I don’t see where other Muslims have much power in her argument. Evaluate her claim of emotional blackmail. Is it a legitimate fear?


Emotional blackmailing is wrong but what about the child who needs an immediate heart transplant? Will (insert deity god here)’s judgement indirectly kill thousands because recycling our already lifeless bodies is wrong?


This entry was posted in A06: Critical Reading, Rick Casario. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Critical Reading- Rick Casario

  1. davidbdale says:

    See your color-coded feedback above, Rick.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s