Critical Reading – Marty Bell


Should organ donation be made compulsory?

  • The technique of using someone who has been saved because of organ donation is effective.
  • He is relevant to the topic of the video. Because of situation it will make what he says more persuasive.
  • The video uses a plain white background which makes the viewer think that the message he is sending is very serious and to focus on what he says.


 I knew that if I didn’t get a transplant in time my life was running out very rapidly.

  • This causes the viewer to feel sympathy for the speaker.
  • It is effective in describing how serious the situation was.
  • Other than providing some emotion for the video it serves no other purpose.


I don’t belive that organ donation should be compulsory.

  • Him saying “I don’t believe” instead of just “organ donation shouldn’t” make this statement less effective. He is just stating his opinion not convincing anyone of anything.
  • He says it while having his hands folded and staring directly at the audience making it dull.


The average waiting time was 18 months. I passed the two-year mark and realized I was living on borrowed time.

  • Telling how long the wait is gives the viewer a background on how in need of organ donors we are. This hurts the speakers argument that organ donation should not be compulsory.
  • This statement actually implies that we need more organ donations therefore, it should be compulsory.
  • This statement also implies that the average wait time for all organ donations is the same.


For me and many other transplant recipients the idea that our donor’s consciously chose to give us the gift of life afer they had lost theirs is all important.

  • This claim is ineffective and completely not supported. He does not give any evidence or cite anyone else saying that the fact that the donor’s consciously chose to give them the gift of life was all important.
  • It implies that the recipients believe the importance of the donors deciding to donate is greater than the importance of them surviving.


By switching to a system of presumed consent we’re taking away that element of a gift.

  • This claim is completely not true.
  •  Being able to live is a gift in itself.
  • By donating an organ to save lives you are still giving someone the gift of life, whether you wanted to or not.
  • I doubt anyone who is in need of an organ to survive would complain about receiving one just because the donor didn’t want them to receive it.
This entry was posted in Critical Reading SP19. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Critical Reading – Marty Bell

  1. davidbdale says:

    Personally, I think his “I believe” is just the right touch here, Marty. The young man knows he’s making a counterintuitive argument, it seems to me. He wants us to know that, no matter how logically we come to our conclusions, we can’t know how a recipient will feel about receiving his organ. In general I agree with your point of view here, but the recipient is entitled to his odd opinion; the fact that he offers it as opinion makes sense.

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