00:05/1:54 I knew that if I didn’t get a transplant in time, my life was running out very rapidly

This claim can be made so that the viewer listening to the video can feel for the speaker knowing that he is a survivor.

His words to say his life “was running out very rapidly”, is to show how serious the case was and that the transplant was needed as soon as possible.

00:13/1:54 Should organ donation be compulsory?

The words in this scene makes the listener think to themselves of the issue that is being viewed. The question leaves a wonder in the mind of the listener of what should be done in this situation.

00:17/1:54 My name is Oli Lewington and three years ago I received a double lung transplant.

Giving the listener a mental picture that not only were you having lung problems, but you had to have both of your lungs replaced in order to live, leaves them in shock that anything can happen to someone, but it doesn’t mean you cant get through it.

00:22/1:54 And I don’t believe organ donation should be compulsory! 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.

Adding this statement gives him the support he needs. Only having 2 years to live and then he survives is a great story to tell about how your life is still going. He makes the listener watch in awe and want to hear more about his survival.

00:37/1:54 Cystic fibrosis clogs the lungs and digestive system and causes difficulty breathing.

Describing what he was diagnosed with gives more meaning to his problem. Now people can understand why he needed the transplant.

00:38/1:54 When I was put on the transplant list, it was explained to me that

Organ Gifts

I will be evaluating the Should organ donation be made compulsory video.

0:00-0:13
I knew that if I did not get a transplant soon my life was running out very rapidly.

This is an inferential claim because he is stating that if he does not get a transplant his life was going to end very soon when he does not know if he will die within years or months. Very rapidly can sound like to many people seconds or minutes, when in reality the man did not receive a transplant for over two years.

0:52-0:58
Essentially you’re waiting for someone else to die so you can get a second chance.

He is now claiming that in order receive an organ now that someone will have to die, when not all transplants are like that. A person can donate organs and still be alive, there are surgeries for that. His specific organ maybe someone does have to die, but then his claim would have to be more specific such as “If waiting for a heart on the transplant list, you’re essentially waiting for someone to die so that you can get a second chance.”

1:11-1:18
I don’t think it will ever be possible for me to express to my donor family the  gratitude I feel for the gift they have given me.

This claim is that the donor family gave this man a gift of an organ personally, when in reality the family of the organ donor does not have anything to do with who the organ may go to. The organ goes to the person who is next on the transplant list. The organ may be considered a gift to the recipient, but the organ donor should be getting the praise not the family because ultimately it is up to the donor to decide if they would like to donate their organs or not.

1:37-1:43
By switching to a system of presumed consent we’re taking away that element of a gift.

This claim is meant to make people feel compassion, that the donors are giving their organs to specific people and they know what kind of condition the people may have and that it will guarantee the recipient to live a long happy life after. When in reality the recipient should be ecstatic with the opportunity that they have a new organ that they can have inside their body. There is no need for the “gift factor”, it is a medical procedure to be done by transplanting a bad organ with a healthier organ. It is not as if the doctors are going to worry about if you are going to like the new organ you receive as someone would do with a gift, they know you are going to like it because it will help you continue to live, or live better.

RenewAmerica.com – Don’t give your heart away

An admission of ignorance

• States the fact that she is pro-life. Making this claim as the first sentence shows that her opinion is already to one side of the argument.
• “My initial interest was in federal domestic and foreign population control programs and later eugenic abortion, sex initiation programs in public and parochial schools, human embryo and fetal experimentation, and euthanasia… In 1972, I founded the U.S. Coalition for Life as an international pro-life research agency and six years later, with the assistance of the Dr. Jerome Lejeune of the University of Paris, I established the International Foundation for Genetic Research, popularly known as the Michael Fund, as the prolife alternative to the March of Dimes. I have written three books dealing with pro-life issues.”She gives evidence of her long stand for pro-life issues but no evidence of organ transplant knowledge.
• She then goes on to admit to formerly having no knowledge of the “evils” of organ transplant, but that her eyes have been opened through help of a neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne .
• The author states her argument in the title or the article but doesn’t follow up or make a claim referring to the point of her article.

The organ donor industry

• “Like the abortion industry, the vital organ transplantation industry rests on the utilitarian principle that the end justifies the means.”The author make a comparison between the abortion industry and the vital organ transplant industry as her first point in her argument then goes onto claim that again like the abortion industry,  the motive between both industries is “hard, cold cash.” She provides no evidence to this bold claim to sway the reader on her side.
• She then makes a person attack on the surgeons  that perform the vital organ transplant  procedures by making the inference that they are killers, which would infer that they are murdering their patients. This claim does not do anything for her argument. they are all empty claims that are coming from an author that is making herself come off as ignorant and angry about something she doesn’t know what shes talking about.

I chose to read “Don’t give your heart away” by Randy Engel.

She opens up with a very unsure claim, “Many Renew America readers, I think, are acquainted with my pro-life credentials.” It’s a very weak claim defining her views on pro-life as popular within the readers of the site. They may not even know who she is, but they definitely would know how she supports life over death.

She closes her introduction, of which detailed her pro-life points, by stating, “removed the scales from my eyes and permitted me to see vital organ transplantation for the evil that it is.” This appears to be the thesis of her argument and is defining all vital organ transplantation as evil. According to Randy, if I ever were dying and I had organs that were fit for donation, the doctors and I would all be evil for taking part in the transplantation of my organs to save lives.

The title of her next section is “The organ donor industry.” She’s making the claim that the whole process of organ donation is actually an industry. She then makes a resemblance claim to another definitional claim when she compares the “organ donor industry” to the “abortion industry.” She claims that the heart of both industries is just cold cash. And then claims that the only thing colder are the hearts of the doctors involved in transplanting and in abortion. She’s done this so that she may try to feed on the emotion of people against abortion. Her radical claims aren’t based on any factual or statistical evidence. According to her, these doctors make a living on the evils of organ transplantation and abortion. However, she provides no proof. She simply is spewing out information based on her opinion of these people. She also claims doctors kill living donors to give to the recipients. According to her, whenever anything is donated, the donor must be executed, otherwise it would not be possible. It’s a very incorrect claim. She backs up her claim by stating “it is a violation of the Natural Moral Law and God’s Commandment — thou shalt not kill.” She’s still basing her claim on fallacy. As she paints the gory picture, she’s trying to make it seem like the “evil medical butcher” is killing people to take their organs to put into people who are in need of them.

Randy then goes on to distinguish the differences between paired and unpaired. She categorizes the two differently by making single paired organ donations as easier and okay. She then makes a resemblance claim when she says “single vital organs such as the heart and the liver.” Her equation is flawed in that liver donation and heart donation are very different. Liver’s can be donated in lobes so that the donor and recipient can both still share in its usefulness.

She equates vital organ transplantation as heart transplantation way too often. Since, as she claims, hearts cannot be taken out of cadavers, all healthy vital unpaired organs cannot be taking out of cadavers. This statement is again, false.

She goes on to talk about Dr. Barnard and says, ” Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie.” She’s making a definitional claim that what he said was a lie. However, she provides no evidence of this at all. How could she possibly know he lied? She leaves the reader hanging and just simply states, “the public found out the truth 40 years later.”

“Many Renew America readers, I think, are acquainted with my pro-life credentials.”

The phrase goes, “Booms, goes the dynamite.”  The first statement of any article, paper, or analysis is always the most critical, even more so than the concluding line; the first sentence makes or breaks the audience and is the snap-decision for whether or not the rag will even be worth reading.

That said, Ms. Randy Engel makes a bold, interesting case; “interesting” is, depressingly, not a standard for “good,” though.  In a document like this, Engel desperately needed to pull out a run like Secretariat, the famed race-horse, and should have led in rather smoothly; launching forward at maximum speed and forcing her audience and companions to chase after her was a severe misstep.  Not everyone is a Renew America reader, actually, so the point of preaching to the choir is rather pointless; if they know, and are even actually reading a site titled Renew America, these are things her readers should expect to see; flowing right into the next point, are the readers only “acquainted?”  This a dramatically Conservative site, and should should, again, be anticipated.

Now we hit the ringer; “Pro-life” credentials.  Readers are not only expected to be familiar with the idea that Ms. Engel is extremely Right-Wing on her issues, but should already know her personal and professional journalist information; this, of course, does not help the lack of expectation from her readers, either.  But no need to fear, she’s going to spend several paragraphs patting herself on the back anyway.

“Given this background, one would think I should have known the truth about unpaired vital organ transplantation as a form of euthanasia, a form of killing, but the sad truth is that while I should have known, I did not know.”

Pride is such a damaging trait to have as a writer; allowing it to creep into an article is even worse (I know this, of course, as a constant culprit of such).  “Given this background,” is only the first of many little nuances that give insight into Ms. Engel’s character; she sets herself up as an apparent expert of the medical field, which she somehow concluded from being a journalist with a pro-life stance.

Her main point is driven home in her wonderfully sarcastic notion that “one would think I should have known the truth about unpaired vital organ transplantation as a form of euthanasia, a form of killing.”  It gives the feeling that we may have missed a paragraph or two, but no, this “thesis” appears entirely randomly.  Euthanasia was not mentioned once prior, nor was Ms. Engel’s realization of “the truth;” at least, to anyone except herself.  Euthanasia is also incredibly taken out of context; Mirriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”  By that, it appears we need to infer that death row inmates are injured, sick, and need not be killed at all.  This, of course, is entirely opposite of Ms. Engel’s feelings.  In fact, she only remotely references allowed killing, and foolishly applies it directly to transplanting organs, an entirely unrelated concept.

“But the sad truth is that while I should have known, I did not know.”  If only this was Ms. Engel’s stance on her entire analysis.  Instead, she decides to state that she should have been aware of facts that deus-ex-machina’ed from absolutely nowhere.  Her making the point makes sense for being along with her “Admission of Ignorance,” but her witty attempt at what she’s ignorant to actually proved that Ms. Engel is ignorant to everything she decided to boast.

Alternatively, maybe it’s because, being an infrequent reader of Renew America, we do not understand her stellar logic.

0:00/1:54

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.

0:07/1:54

 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.

0:23/1:54

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.

0:43/1:54

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.

1:19/1:54

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.

1:37/1:54

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.

Harvest Inmates

The harvesting of inmates makes some interesting claims on the donations of organs. At 0:16 seconds in they claim that inmates have already asked for their organs to be donated and that they have been refused. This is very relevant because it shows that there is a willingness of inmates to donate their organs, but it doesnt specify exactly how many even wanted to do that. It makes it seem like inmates are very willing to donate organs, but with no exact numbers there could have only been two people who ever asked about donation. It is sufficient enough to support the taking of inmates organs, and makes it look as more of something they want than something they disagree on.

The video also claims that each inmate could save twelve people with all their organs, and that they are destroyed and wasted when the inmates are killed by electrocution or lethal injection. The claim is made from 0:22 seconds to 1:oo minute in the video. This claim proves how great and important the organs are,and makes a huge support and sufficient information to follow along with this harvesting of inmates. It makes a claim to save the lives of twelve good people in exchange for the death of a bad person that is going to be killed anyway. That’s a hard claim to fight against. It makes a great point that there is a huge waste going on, and that while we don’t harvest these inmates organs that thirteen people are dying instead of just one. You can’t argue against saving twelve lives for one of someone who is going to die and is willing to donate their organs. This is the strongest point and claim made in their video. It gives the most sufficient information and reason to harvest the organs. It does make an assumption that it will save twelve lives, there is no proof or evidence in that exact claim for them to base that on.

At the times of 1:15 to 1:20 the claims made by this video are that they could perform the procedure to remove the organs of the inmates under amnesia, and that it is completely painless to the inmate. It gives a great way to harvest and save the organs of the inmate so that they are not damaged at all. It is very reasonable claim because they are saving the organs along with giving the inmate a painless way to die with no suffering. This makes it a unbrutal way of killing the inmate while helping gain valuable organs. It gives a plus to the people who need the organs along with making a sympathetic view to the inmate for people who view their execution as unjust. It may be easier to accept their executions when they are saving lives along with going through a painless death.

From the time of 1:22 to 1:33 the video claims that thirty-eight out of the fifty states in the U.S. approve capital punishment. This gives clear evidence that there are executions of inmates going on throughout most of the United States, so if it’s going to be accepted as a common practice that we should at least make it valuable. It gives sufficient evidence to go with the harvesting of inmate organs if states are already wasting the inmates organs by killing them anyway. It’s a very reasonable claim because it gives some quantitative data to support their idea to harvest the organs.

All the claims made in this video are very relevant and give a good amount of sufficient information to do the harvesting and claims they make. Some may not have much proof or evidence of the matter, but they do make great points in the action of harvesting the inmate’s organs.