0:05- 0:17 – “It may be without the donation of an organ, people will die, but it’s the nature of organ donation, that it’s a gift; it’s not a duty”
- Here Anthony is making a casual claim by saying [that] without the donation of an organ people will die. Obviously, people are going to die while waiting for an organ, so it should be our duty to provide those people with the organs they need.
I hate to criticize you for saying something so obvious, true, and ethical, Anthony, so I won’t criticize you for that at all. It’s well said. But your counterclaim doesn’t qualify as a critical reading of Anthony Ozimic’s argument. He says a donation is a gift, which sure sounds true as we understand the two words. He further says it’s a gift, not a duty. You counter by saying” it’s a duty. He said/he said is lousy argument. One of you has to take the other down with something else.
- He states his position on the topic by making an evaluation claim that, the nature of organ donation is a gift, not a duty. It seems he is trying to make the point that it is not his or anyone else’s duty to provide those people with the organs but it should be something done from the bottom of their heart.
Yes, apparently that’s exactly what he says: it should be a gift, not a duty. We’re talking in circles here, Anthony.
0:22- 0:32 – “I’m a Catholic, and I’m not on the organ donation register because I’m very concerned about the danger of euthanasia and the state having rights over my body after death”
- He makes a number of claims with this statement, he starts by relating his religion with why he doesn’t support organ donation. He makes a causal claim saying, organ donation causes a danger for euthanasia.
Actually, no. He doesn’t “relate his religion” with his resistance; you made that connection. He identifies his reluctance as fear of losing control of his cadaver.
- He makes another causal claim by saying he is not an organ donor because he is Catholic and he is scared that it would have an affect on the rights over his body after death.
No, he doesn’t; you do. (I grant you there’s a strong implication, Anthony, but still, he doesn’t.) As for: “have an affect on the rights,” please review Try to Say Something for advice on how to avoid vague expressions like: “have an effect on.”
0:33- 0:56 – “We have seen over a number of years a move towards euthanasia by removing food and fluids and reasonable medical treatment. So it is not unreasonable to be worried that the end of people’s lives …will be organ removal.”
- He claims that over the past few years doctors have moved towards euthanasia.
He doesn’t say “doctors” have, but let’s not quibble.
- He makes a resemblance claim that they have moved toward euthanasia in order to end people’s lives in order to remove their organs, but in this claim he fails to include other reasons why they would use euthanasia.
You’re right, he doesn’t. In fact, he doesn’t even claim that the current trend toward more euthanasia even results in organ removal, let alone be motivated by it. The resemblance claim is particularly grisly: 1) they currently cause death by removing food; therefore 2) they will eventually cause death by removing organs. Where he gets the stones to draw this conclusion is unclear.
0:57- 1:27 – ”I feel so strongly about this issue that I carry a card which says that I refuse consent for organ removal because I believe it is too risky to be an organ donor in the current climate. Also, our bodies are temples of the holy spirit.”
- Anthony claims that organ removal is too risky so he carries a card around which says he doesn’t want to donate his organs.
To be really clear, he doesn’t say organ removal is risky; he says announcing that you’re a willing donor is risky.
- He brings up religion again when he claims our bodies are temples of the holy spirit and not for anyone to dispose of the organs. This causal claim shows that he strongly opposes organ donation because our bodies are more sacred then a used car being used for its parts.
He does seem to be making a clear appeal to the sacredness of the body while it contains the holy spirit. Are we to believe that after death the HS still has jurisdiction?
1:35-1:48 – “We need to be promoting ethical areas of medical science, not now giving rights to the state over our bodies after death.”
- He claims that stem-cell research will one day get rid of organ donation.
Here of course he doesn’t mention specific research at all, but he does hold out hope that transplants will eventually be moot.
- He claims that organ donation is unethical and people shouldn’t give the rights of their bodies up after death.
I agree completely; his claim contains the underlying claim that organ transplants are unethical. I read him to be further claiming that “giving the state rights” is also unethical.
- He makes an evaluation claim when he compares the benefits of stem-cell research to the downfall of organ donation.
I don’t see that here, but I trust you that he does so.
Anthony brings up some good points but he fails to see the other side of the argument. He is stuck on his religious views and claims that he loses sight of the moral views. He relies too much on the unproven alternatives to organ donation like stem-cell research and his religion in this video. The claims he makes are outrageous, I don’t see how he can neglect all the people that need an organ because his body is a “temple.”
Thank you, Anthony. I apologize if that felt like a frontal attack. I appreciate your work here; I’m just trying to reinforce the need to be very specific about your own claims and those of others. Precision in language is all we have to convince people of the rightness of our ideas.