Read and analyze the article " Opt-out organ donation without Presumptions by Dr. Ben Saunders"

I don’t need any other references other than the article it self.

Article : Opt-out organ donation without Presumptions by Dr. Ben Saunders

2~3 pages of clear synopsis of the different elements of the argument contained in the article. What is the argument and how do its pieces fit together? discuss the effectiveness of the argument. Should a reader of this article be convinced by this argument?

What are the strength and weakness?

How might someone who is opposed to the view taken in the article respond?

How would you improve or challenge the argument?

I don’t need any other references other than the article it self.

No direct quoting.

The following is some of the ideas I wanted to point out! and just wrote without a particular order. Moreover, I want to emphasize on Dr. Ben Saunders argument of the differences between “Presumed consent vs tacit consent”

In the article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, published by Dr. Ben Saunders, he is trying to promote / defend “opt-out organ donation system”, where people who did not give their consent are automatic, considered as giving their consent to donate their organs when they passes away. This is rather completely opposite to the current organ donation system, Opt-in system, which we are more familiar with, where only people who have given their consent are the group of people who are donating their organs to the (needs). And people who did not give their consent, their organs will not be touched. As the article continues, it describes how much the current society is lacking in available organ donation versus the amount of needed organs to save lives. Dr. Saunders argues that if the current organ donation system is to be switched to “Opt-out system” from “Opt-in” there will be more organs available to people on waiting lists for organ donation. By implementing this system, there will be no wasted perfectly good organs from people who have not given their consents for whatever reasons. Although this Opt-out system sounds controversial due to not giving enough options to the peoples’ own body after death, and possibly sounds unethical and immoral, Dr. Saunders presents a number of arguments to make his claim a bit more reasonable. He claims that when one requires an organ donation to survive, the most important value of one is “instrumental” value of the organ rather than “expressive” or “symbolic value” which are described as one’s moral and self-evaluation in the society. Dr. Saunders challenges the negative moral perception of opt-out organ donation system by challenging the Kantian moral value, where is it difficult for one to realize whether he or she had done the right thing if it is harder or more costly to you. He gives some twisted examples of making the donation system difficult for the donors to go through a series of testing and have them pay fees to make the donating much more a difficult task to fit the Kant’s description of Moral worth action. By offering this ridiculous example, he is trying to make the point that when it comes down to organ donation, where it is to save lives of the others in needs, there is no reason to distinguish the moral value the one will get by donating his or her organ either under opt-in system, “difficult system”, or Opt-out system, “Easier System”. He also makes his point that people who decides to donate their organ, when it is easy for them to decide, assuming that they know that they are in a terminal condition in death bed or what not, it doesn’t show the moral worth of the person as well. He Also argues the wrongful use of the word “presumed consent” which is currently viewed of his favored “Opt-out” system, where people didn’t have any saying in their consent, are automatically considered as agreeing to donate their organs. This causes a bit of a moral issue because according the Dr. Saunders the public is more used to the idea of donated organs only with properly passed on consent by signing consent forms. Therefore, his proposed idea of using Opt-out system, presumed consent, there is a bit of conflict. Dr. Saunders is trying to resolve this moral issue by arguing the proper diction of the word consent. According to his description of the diction, consent, it may be expressed either implicitly or explicitly. Although there are some difficulties distinguishing between the two, obviously the explicit expressed consent is more clearly passed on form of consent out of the two. Furthermore, he argues that consent is a form of action rather than once mental attitude, and it can be a form of tacit consent and must be given. He prefers the term tacit consent rather than presumed consent to make the public feel a bit more ease about his idea of opt-out system. It seems it is a far fetch on Dr. Saunders argument by using the claim of using tacit consent instead of presumed consent. Because in the end they are rather the very similar things. Even though he used examples of a chairperson giving out instruction to declare a motion if no one voice objection, in which cases it is clear that silence implies acquiescence or the other example of women entering to a restaurant to order food and eat, he claims that even if she doesn’t say anything as “I’m going to pay after my meal!” he is trying to present the idea of tacit consent. However, a bit of a problem I have to fully agree on his claim is that in the examples he has given, these are more of an obligation, when giving his or her consent in terms of donating his or her organ should be their own will. Even with his tried to differentiate the difference between presumed consent and tacit consent, without having a power to read someone’s mind, how can one determine whether the decision to donate the organ was from the presumed consent or tacit consent. Dr. Saunders then moves on with the idea that once the Opt-out system is implemented, people who have not opted-out of the organ donation for whatever reason, can be considered as implicitly consented. As a reader, I can see that he cares about number of organs being wasted rather than have a better usage to save more lives, but without more detailed examples of how this Opt-out system will increase the amount of organ donation and rather just changing few problem words around to sound better for this public seems to be an inadequate way to make his claim and defend his idea. I feel that even if he just claimed that make the organ donation like an obligation for people after death with specific steps to follow and still have an option to opt-out from this obligation, his argument will be much more powerful and actual possible numbers or organ donation increased and etc. His idea of our lacking in the number of organ donation is strong but trying the justify his opt-out system by simply changing one word seems rather a weakness in his argument. I would improve the argument by showing actual numbers of wasted “organs” and number of people that could’ve been saved with those organs.