Please read my attached essay and reply to each question. (its okay to bullshit your way though haha) 300 words and 2 sources for each please. 1) Four important steps when composing a proposal include (1) convincing the audience that there is a problem that needs to be solved, (2) explaining what you want your audience to do about the problem, (3) acknowledging opposing viewpoints or steps to solving the problem and (4) justifying the action you are asking your audience to take.  What strategies will you use for each step? What will make your content for each of these steps effective?  Later in the week, review answers that your classmates have provided and provide feedback on their ideas.2) Many people have either engaged in an argument that seemed unresolvable or witnessed such an argument between friends and family members. Consider one of these arguments you have either experienced or witnessed, and then identify the fallacies that were expressed during this discussion or argument. Note how the fallacies prevented the discussion from being resolved. What did you learn about fallacies from this experience that you can apply to your proposal essay? How might fallacies like these be avoided in proposal writing?
policy_proposal_hannah_fronapfel.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Hannah Fronapfel
ENG-106
08/22/2016
Kimberly Brownlee
Policy Proposal
There were almost 95000 Americans who were on the waiting list to receive organs
transplant at the beginning of 2007. Of this, those who required kidney transplant were roughly
60000. As things stood at the moment and now, organ donors were are on demand more than the
supply. Something has to be done therefore to the trade of human organs so that those who require
it can get it at affordable prices and quickly. The move will also see to it that the number of citizens
on the waiting list go down, and there will also be a reduction in the cases of death due to lack of
organs. Due to lifestyle diseases, it is inevitable that the need for organ transplants will always be
on the rise. Experts in the health sector have predicted that diabetes will pose a danger in the near
future, and since it is a leading cause of kidney failure, it is no doubt that organs will be needed
even more in the coming years. Consequently, there is a shortage of human organs Vis a Vis the
supply. A proposal of possible policy changes is imperative in ensuring that there will be an
increase in human organ supply to counter the demand.
The policy to increase the supply of human organs will not go down well with some
activists who are opposed to the idea as it goes against moral and ethical virtues. They have a view
that instead of dealing with the issue of organ transplant, medics must find a way of preventing the
failing of organs through regenerative and preventive medicines. With such moves, they are sure
that the population will have an improved health hence shrinking the number of individuals on the
list for organ transplant. If such methods of public health can be implemented and put into action,
we can rest assured that this organ shortage will come to an end. However, some health experts
doubt the method. They argue on the basis that some regenerative approaches have failed and they
argue that the methods might not give the desired results. An example is the regeneration of
structurally integrated bladder cells which has remained a theory rather than a reality. By this, they
believe that such moves will not be an efficient way of responding to organs that fail in the human
body (Aita, 2011).
As for the preventive medicine, it is no doubt that it will not be effective as well since the
medicine will only work for the younger generation. As a person ages, the ability of the kidneys
to function properly is lowered hence even with preventive medicine; the person may still die of
other diseases or still die of organ failure. The strictness that comes with preventive medicine to
avoid organ failure is also another uphill task that most people cannot be able to cope up with. It
requires a balanced diet, exercise as well as enough sleep. Not so many people can get these
requirements in order as the hustles of life will always put one away from such practices. Hence,
just like the regenerative medicine, the move is far from being an efficient solution towards
decreasing the number of individuals on the waiting list of organ transplant. It is, therefore,
imperative that a serious check is done on increasing the supply of human organ as some of the
solutions and methods offered against it are in no doubt going to help the situation.
The first policy proposal is to allow for the donation of organs after a controlled cardiac
death. At times, the family members can make a decision to end the life of their kin after a piece
of advice from doctors. The situation that might lead to this is when the doctors are sure that by
keeping the patient in life support machine would not be of any meaningful help in making the
patient gain normal body functions and activity. Such patients are considered beneficial to society
if they can donate their organs through mercy killing. There is potential for organs from such
cardiac patient that is yet to be realized owing to a lack of policy that will protect both the patients
and the family members. A prove that the policy is a potential in increasing organ supply came
almost a decade ago when through mercy killing, 680 kidneys, and 230 livers were obtained from
only 360 deceased donations (Monbaliu, Pirenne & Talbot, 2012).
The practice must, however, be within a framework of a hospital policy that looks at the
moral as well as the clinical criteria. There are six criteria’s to a perfect hospital policy on the
donation after controlled cardiac death. The first criteria are that the decision to mercy killing must
be independent of the decision to donate. No family member must be convinced to accept the
removal of a life support of their kin because a donation was needed. The second criteria are that
the donors must be treated with dignity just like the nondonors. Just because their organs are taken
away after death does not make them lesser deceased than other dead people. They must, therefore,
be treated with honor and given the last respects that everyone else receives. The third criteria are
that the hospital authority must provide the family members with an option of either being present
during the mercy killing of not. The fourth criteria is that there must be a considerable time frame
before the start of the removal of the organs after the life support machine is withdrawn (Kessler
& Roth, 2012).
The fifth criteria are that the withdrawal process must not be hastened simply because the
organs are needed and they would be of no use if they waited any longer. The sixth criteria are that
the patients must be given time to die in peace if they do not die quickly as the life support machine
is removed. In a nutshell, the desire to have the practice-wide spread must not provide a loophole
to hospitals for the transplants to be done without due process and policies. The arguments for the
practice are that it would increase organ supply without overlooking the ethical issues. Another
argument for the practice is that the donors and families consent on a free will before the action is
taken. The opportunity for families and individuals to donate in situations that it could not be
possible is made possible through the practice making it another advantage (Mendoza, 2010).
Another policy proposal would be to have cash payments for organs. An amendment to the
National Organ Transplant of 1984 would see to it that there is cash payment for organs through
legalization. With a legalization of the cash payments for organs, there will be two major key
players in the sector. The donor and the recipient. The donors would be put into three categories.
The first group includes those living individuals who are willing to sell their non-vital organs at
present. The donors would be limited to what they can donate an example being a kidney or a
segment of the liver. The next category of donors would be those who are willing to sell their
organs after they die for the benefit of their family members. The condition in this category is that
the organs can only be made available if the donors passed away in a manner of a way that the
organ would be available. The last category of donors would be the deceased donors whose kin
would be compensated after the organs have been procured (Becker & Elias, 2014).
The selling of the human organs would be organized in three ways. The first way would be
through a free market, which would mean that the prices of the organs would be regulated by the
law of demand and supply. The second way would be through a regulated market in which the
environment would be made safe for both the donors and the recipients. The process of trade of
human organs will also be transparent in the regulated market. In addition to this, all institutions
involved in organ transplant must ensure that they establish some policies that will guide the selling
and buying of human organs. The final way is through a government controlled program that is
aimed at the payment system. The payment would be through the Medicare system. The paying
would be fixed for a single organ or a fixed price for all obtainable organs. The first payment is
meant for the living donors ready to sell some parts of their organs whereas the second payment is
intended for the deceased donors. An argument for this policy is that permitting the trade of human
organs is in a way a promotion of human freedom. The free will to sell an organ to improve the
quality of life is a commendable act provided it does not violet anybody’s right (Huang, Millis,
Mao, Millis, Sang & Zhong, 2012).
There is a shortage of human organs as at present, which is a fact. However, the policies
given will see to it that there is an increase in the supply of such non-vital organs to ease the current
surge in human organs. The policy on the donation of organs after a controlled cardiac death can
be looked at as a way of making beneficial use from organs that might not be readily available. It
is of more use to obtain an organ from someone who may not be in a position to getting back to
normal life activities hence saving the family members Medicare fee for the life supporting
machine. On the other hand, the cash payment for organs policy will see to it that the major players
in the trade are protected from exploitation. Before that, the policy will legalize the selling and
buying of human organs hence stop the illegal black market for the trade of human organs.
References.
Aita, K. (2011). New organ transplant policies in Japan, including the family-oriented priority
donation clause. Transplantation, 91(5), 489-491.
Becker, G. S., & Elias, J. J. (2014). Cash for kidneys: the case for a market for organs. The Wall
Street Journal, 1(18), 2014.
Huang, J., Millis, J. M., Mao, Y., Millis, M. A., Sang, X., & Zhong, S. (2012). A pilot
programme of organ donation after cardiac death in China. The Lancet, 379(9818), 862865.
Kessler, J. B., & Roth, A. E. (2012). Organ allocation policy and the decision to donate. The
American Economic Review, 102(5), 2018-2047.
Mendoza, R. L. (2010). Kidney black markets and legal transplants: Are they opposite sides of
the same coin? Health Policy, 94(3), 255-265.
Monbaliu, D., Pirenne, J., & Talbot, D. (2012). Liver transplantation using donation after cardiac
death donors. Journal of hepatology, 56(2), 474-485.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment