The Meat Market (Summary & Questions-Answers)

 

The Meat Market

(Summary & Questions-Answers)

Tabarrok raises the issue of shortage of human organs for transplants in the United States, and proposes a solution i.e. payment to the living donors. He gives the example of Singapore, Iran and Israel to support his idea of organ purchase from the donors. Tabarrok states that a large number of people suffer from kidney disease in the world. In the United States while 83,000 people were waiting on the official kidney-transplant list, only 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008. And nearly 5,000 died waiting for the transplant. To deal with the shortages, surgeons adopt several methods. The most extreme method is the routine removal. It is an act of removing pieces of tissue from dead patients for transplant without any prior consent. Similarly medical doctors in some states of America while conducting autopsies may harvest corneas without notifying the family of the deceased one. This practice looks controversial though it is legal.

According to the law, human organs are taken only after the doctors declare death of the donors. While transplanting, the doctors must make sure about the point where the donor dies, but not his organs. However, it’s not easy to tell the exact time of death. Nobody can identify the exact line between life and death. This is the paradox of deceased donation. So we cannot exactly say whether the organs are harvested from a dead donor or living one. In the past brain dead donors were a good source of harvesting organs for transplantation. But these days, decreasing crime rate and increasing automobile safety have led to fewer potential brain-dead donors than in the past. Now the doctors are giving focus on donation after cardiac death though this practice is controversial. Due to the scarcity of organs, the doctors are forced to transplant the organs which were thought to be unsuitable in the past. Kidneys of overage or unhealthy people are being donated. Thus, the quality of transplants is questionable since it may cause harms rather than benefits to the health of the receivers. But the doctors have no alternative either.

Several countries are following the concept of presumed consent. According to this concept, doctors can use the organs of the deceased without the prior consent of the dead ones or their family members, so everyone is taken as a potential organ donor unless they have denied this system by signing a non-organ-donor card. Presumed consent is popular in Europe, and India is planning to introduce this program. However, it has not flourished in America, but this can be experimented at the state level for its development. Due to the shortage of organs for transplants, the black market is growing. It covers about ten percent of transplants worldwide. It may have negative impact on the health of the donors as they are less likely to get proper postoperative care. So it is a good idea to legalize the sale of organs for the overall benefit of all.

Iran has solved the shortage of transplant organs. It has developed a legal payment system for organ donation. In this system, organs are not bought and sold at the bazaar. They have established a non-profit organization called Dialysis and Transplant Patients Association (Datpa) that helps provide kidneys to the needy patients. Patients who cannot manage a kidney from a deceased donor or from a related living donor apply to Datpa. Datpa has a list of medically evaluated potential donors. The donors are paid $1,200 by the Iranian government, and the kidney recipients pay between $2,300 and $4,500. The poor recipients are supported by charitable organizations. Thus, in Iran no patients are deprived of kidney transplants.

 Iranian system and black market make it clear that the shortage of organs can be solved by paying the living donors. It is effective as well as cheaper. Iran introduced the system in 1988 and eliminated the shortage of kidneys by 1999.  Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker and Julio Elias state that a payment of $15,000 to living donors is likely to minimize the shortage of kidneys in America. And the federal government can pay the donors. This is cheaper than the dialysis.

The world governments are gradually becoming successful to harvest kidneys from the living donors. As human body can function properly with one kidney, there is no harm in donating the other kidney. But at the same time, it’s an ugly practice. The concerned agencies have failed to solve it reasonably. Is it justifiable to extract kidneys from the living ones while a number of kidneys that could have saved lives are being buried and burned every day? The government can introduce the policies and programs to encourage the people to donate their organs after their death. Singapore and Israel have introduced nonmonetary incentives systems for potential organ donors.  Singapore does not force its citizens to sign the presumed consent system, but people who opt out are given a low priority on the transplant waiting list in case they need an organ. This concept of no give, no take surely encourages people to follow the presumed consent system. Even the people who find the idea of paying for organs disgusting accept the ethical foundation of no give, no take. Moreover, it helps reduce the shortage because it encourages people to sign the organ donor card. Israel has developed a point system to systematize the organ transplants in an effective and fair manner.

The shortage of organs is in increasing order worldwide, however, it can be solved if we follow the successful stories of different nations, and innovate some new methods. Presumed consent, financial compensation for living and deceased donors, and point systems would surely increase the availability of transplant organs.

Questions

1.What, according to Tabarrok, is “the great paradox of deceased donation” (5)? Why is this paradox significant?

According to the law, human organs are taken only after the doctors declare death of the donors. While transplanting, the doctors must make sure about the point where the donor dies, but not his organs. However, it’s not easy to tell the exact time of death. Nobody can identify the exact line between life and death. This is the paradox of deceased donation. So we cannot exactly say whether the organs are harvested from a dead donor or living one. This paradox is significant because it raises an ethical issue. It forces us to think whether we are taking one life in order to save the other.

2. What positive developments in the last several decades have “led to fewer potential brain-dead donors than in the past” (6)?

In the past brain dead donors were a good source of harvesting organs for transplantation. But these days, decreasing crime rate and increasing automobile safety have led to fewer potential brain-dead donors than in the past. Because of the security and automobile safety, the number of brain deaths has significantly gone down. It’s a good news for the world. However, it is taking a heavy toll on the people who wait for the organ transplants for their survival.

3. Tabarrok uses definition in paragraph 7. What does he define, and how does this definition help him achieve his essay’s purpose?

Tabarrok defines the term expanded criteria organs. It allows the doctors to use the organs of even overage or unhealthy people for transplants. Even if it is risky, the doctors are forced to use them owing to the shortage of organs. Thus the organs which were considered unsuitable in the past have become suitable now. This definition helps the writer to show the critical condition of the waiting patients who are forced to accept even the cancerous or weak organs. This shows the increasing shortage of the organs for transplant. Showing such high demand of organs, he is able to recommend all the stakeholders to follow some methods for the solution of the problem.

4. Tabarrok identifies one country that has eliminated shortages in transplant organs. Which country? How has this been accomplished?

 Iran has eliminated the shortage in transplant organs. It has developed a legal payment system for organ donation. In this system, organs are not bought and sold at the bazaar. They have established a non-profit organization called Dialysis and Transplant Patients Association (Datpa) that helps provide kidneys to the needy patients. Patients who cannot manage a kidney from a deceased donor or from a related living donor apply to Datpa. Datpa has a list of medically evaluated potential donors from a pool of applicants. The donors are paid $1,200 by the Iranian government, and the kidney recipients pay between $2,300 and $4,500. The poor recipients are supported by charitable organizations. Thus, in Iran no patients are deprived of kidney transplants.

5. What is your reaction to Tabarrok’s title? To his essay’s opening sentence? Do you think these are the reactions he expected readers to have? Explain.

When I read the title The meat market it reminded me of a place where meat is sold. I thought the essay is about some issues related with meat. However, as I started reading the essay, I found the very idea “Harvesting human organs for sale” quite disgusting. I thought of some heinous practice we see in a horror story. Of course, the writer might have expected such reactions from the readers. Such a beginning attracts readers’ attention, and makes the text engaging. As the readers continue to read, they know that things to be discussed here are quite different from they had expected.

6. Tabarrok’s introduction relies on certain assumptions regarding his readers’ attitudes about organ harvesting. What are these assumptions? Do you find this introduction effective? Why or why not?

Tabarrok’s opening sentence “Harvesting human organs for sale” looks quite disgusting. This makes the readers develop negative attitudes towards this practice because trade of human organs cannot be accepted in a civilized society. And when he gives the information about the practice of paying money to donors in Singapore and Iran, the readers tend to believe that it is the poor who are likely to sell their organs at the cost of their lives. This cannot be acceptable as it stands against the principle of equality, justice, and above all, humanity. But the concept of harvesting human organs turns out to be different from what the readers have assumed.

I find this introduction effective. Such a beginning attracts readers’ attention, and makes the text engaging. Had he started the essay giving a general information about the scarcity of organs for transplant, it would not have been able to attract the readers’ attention.

7. According to Tabarrok, presumed consent “has less support in the U.S.” (9) than in other countries. What does he think might change that? Does he support “presumed consent”?

Several countries are following the concept of presumed consent. According to this concept, doctors can use the organs of the deceased without the prior consent of the dead ones or their family members. So everyone is taken as a potential organ donor unless they deny this system by signing a non-organ-donor card. Presumed consent is popular in Europe, and India is planning to introduce this program.

However, it has not flourished in America, but this can be experimented at the state level for its development. The states can enforce this system in their own ways. The writer supports presumed consent. He gives the examples of the countries which have successfully implemented it. He believes that in America too it will surely address the scarcity of organ transplants.

8. In paragraph 5, Tabarrok raises one of the most profound questions influencing the debate about organ donations: what is the dividing line between life and death? However, he avoids further discussion of this issue in his essay. Why? Would his essay have been stronger if he had elaborated on the subject? Why or why not?

The issue of organ donation is debatable because people do not have a single opinion about the dividing line between life and death. While transplanting organs, the doctors must make sure about the point where the donor dies, but not his organs. So how can the doctors after a particular transplant convince the family of the dead one that the organs were harvested only after the patient’s death?

Tabarrok avoids further discussion of this issue because this is not the central idea of his essay. The purpose of writing this essay is to address the shortage of organs for transplants. So he presents several methods for the enough availability of the organs. Had he discussed further about this debatable issue, he would not have become successful to fulfill the purpose of the essay.

9. Tabarrok is an economist. Do you think he approaches the subject differently from the way a member of the clergy, a lawyer, or a physician would? What advantages does his perspective give him?

As an economist, Tabarrok seeks solution of the issue from financial perspectives. He refers to the practice of Iran and Singapore where the donors are paid a certain amount of money. What would happen to the poor patients who cannot buy kidneys? And he fails to see horrible consequences of this practice. It seems to encourage the poor people to sell their kidneys to meet with their daily needs. He recognizes the system of presumed consent. Is it good idea to harvest organs of the deceased without any prior consent? Surely a clergy and a lawyer would raise the issue of one’s faith system and human rights respectively. A clergy is less likely to agree with no give no take system too. Human beings have their own rituals and cultural practices, some ethnic or religious communities may have their own views about the organ donation. Is it justifiable to force them to do what the state wants? Tabarrok seems to be unconcerned about these aspects of humanity.  Similarly, a physician would look for some other ways like a new innovation for the solution of the issue. And a clergy or a lawyer would have proposed some other ways too.

10. In paragraph 12, Tabarrok uses inductive reasoning. Does his inference seem justified? Why or why not?

To justify his argument Tabarrok employs inductive reasoning here. For him paying living donors helps solve the issue of kidney shortage in America. It is effective as well as cheaper. To support this argument, he refers to the Iranian system, and an article of two Nobel Laurete economists.  Iran introduced the system in 1988 and eliminated the shortage of kidneys by 1999.  Nobel Laureate economists Gary Becker and Julio Elias state that a payment of $15,000 to living donors is likely to minimize the shortage of kidneys in America. And the federal government can pay the donors. This is cheaper than the dialysis.

His inference seems justified. Tabarrok is able to convince the readers that buying kidneys from the donors can help solve the issue. The Iranian system is the best evidence to support his argument. And similarly reference to the research articles strengthens his idea.

11. Tabarrok uses cause and effect several times in the essay. Identify two examples. How effective are they? How do they support his overall purpose?

 Tabarrok uses causes and effects several times in the essay. We can see cause and effect relationship between shortage of organs for transplants and presumed consent. Shortage of organs result in the practice of presumed consent. It is an act of using the organs of dead patients for transplant without any prior consent. The doctors are forced to use these organs for saving lives. This shows the scarcity of organs, and by presenting this scenario of short supply, the writer want to suggest that presumed consent can help solve the issue to some extent. Similarly, the writer states that as people can leave with one kidney, it’s a good idea to donate the other in order to save life by taking some financial compensation. He suggests this idea in order to address the crisis of organs for transplants. This helps to solve the problem which is the purpose of the essay.

12. Tabarrok repeatedly writes in the passive voice — for example, in paragraphs 4 and 8. Would rewriting such sentences in the active voice make the sentences — and the writer’s argument — stronger? Why or why not?

Passive voice is used to give an emphasis on action. When things done are more important than the doers, passive verbs are used. In paragraph 4 and 8, the writer mentions about the initiatives taken so as to address the short supply of organs for transplants. So it’s not necessary to mention who and what did the work. The focus of the essay is not to list the names of the contributors but to state the contribution. Thus rewriting the sentences in active voice would weaken the writer’s argument.

13. Evaluate Tabarrok’s title. Given his purpose, audience, and subject matter, do you think it is appropriate? Explain.

I don’t think the title “The Meat Market” is appropriate. Had the writer had negative attitudes towards the trend of organ transplants, it would have been suitable. He strongly supports the idea of organ donation. The purpose of writing this essay is to solve the short supply of organs for saving the lives of people. For this, he does not hesitate to support even the debatable practice like presumed consent. Similarly he advocates the financial compensation for deceased and living donors. Since he does not see anything unethical in organ trade for the pure objective of saving lives, he should have chosen other title than ‘The Meat Market’.