The Meat Market: Alex Tabarrok BBS 1st Year Patterns for College Writing

 

Argumentative Essay 2: The Meat Market by Alex Tabarrok

About the Essayist 

 

Alex Tabarrok is a Canadian-American economist and professor at George Mason University, where he holds the Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at the Mercatus Center. He co-authors the influential economics blog Marginal Revolution and co-founded Marginal Revolution University, an online platform for economic education. Tabarrok's research spans health economics, law and economics, public choice theory, and innovative policy mechanisms like dominant assurance contracts.

Main Theme of Essay

The main theme of Alex Tabarrok’s essay “The Meat Market” is the ethical and economic dilemma surrounding the shortage of human organs for transplantation. Tabarrok argues that the current donation-based system fails to meet demand, leading to preventable deaths and the rise of black-market practices. He advocates for a regulated market where organ donors are compensated, using Iran’s successful model as an example. The essay emphasizes the need to rethink traditional views on organ donation and explore market-based solutions that can save lives, ensure donor safety, and eliminate illegal practices while addressing the global organ shortage crisis.

Click for  Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXmJXKpcjZk

Summary of the Essay

This article by Alexander Tabarrok comes as a reaction to the increasing number of deaths as a result of organ shortage. According to the article, there is a huge shortage of organs and it has resulted in many deaths that could have been prevented if people could agree to donate their organs to others who are in need. According to Tabarrok, 60,000 people die every year due to organ shortage; it is only 10,000 people are willing to give their organs to others. It is therefore clear that a whopping 50, 000 die due to a lack of organs (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). As a result of this development, therefore, Tabarrok suggests a solution problem of organ shortage by proposing the moral solution: Organs should be given on a give-and-take basis, whereby anybody willing to give their organs will receive them from others in case they will require one for themselves.

Upon further scrutiny, an organ donation is an act of willingness where those who are willing to donate their organs when they pass away do so without having to be coerced or influenced to do so. Organ donation in itself raises a lot of moral questions since, for one to give an organ, it means they have to be dead already. The article gives a summary of the basis under which organ donation should be done, but the remedy looks like it is a step closer to making organs commodities of trade in the market. In a real sense, the laws of many countries discourage the sale and acquisition of organs under the market forces of demand and supply (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The argument behind the legal stance taken by many countries against organ trade is purely due to their cultural construct of the setting.

The give-and-take scenario suggested, in this case, will mean that organs will only be given to those who require them on the condition that they are donors. The signing of the donation document is supposed to be an act of willingness from the person concerned. Signing an agreement to donate an organ will act as insurance for one to be an automatic recipient (Nadell, 2008, p.511). Initially, the recipient of organs was not dependent upon one's willingness to donate or not. The new suggestion will deny organ transplants to those who require organs, and yet they have not signed donor forms. The formal logic behind this article is that the writer uses facts to appeal to the moral sense. The fact that there are a large number of people dying every year due to a lack of organs as a result of another person's mistake of not signing donor forms trickles down to the issue of morals. If people can sign donor forms and allow others to use their organs upon their death, or simply allow their organs to be harvested upon their death serves their moral right to live (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The writer notes the fact that people die every year with all their organs intact. Those who would have lived longer through the donation die as well because they lack someone to donate organs to them. The two scenarios of death present the basis of moral questioning, where one will question the need for one to die of natural causes with well-functioning organs, and at the same time deny others' life by refusing to sign the donor form. It makes a lot of sense to save someone's life through the act of signing a donor form alone and it will go a long way in saving another person's life who in principle, is not privy to the donor or may be privy.

Initially, organ donors were encouraged to donate their organs by being given an expensive send-off; this is to say, organ donors' funeral expenses were being fully footed by the organ donors' association to encourage others to take the course of organ donation. The technique of coercing through paying money to the donors to encourage donors to donate their organs was not effective as well. This array of facts that are given by the writer of this article clearly explains the need to have a different technique altogether to coerce people to be donors (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The suggestion given of 'no give-no take' looks more like a choice than a force, where both probable donors are probable recipients.

As far as organ donation is concerned, I agree with the writer of the article on the fact that. Organs should and must not be attached to value. In this case, organs should be given for free to deserving and needy parties. The principle of 'no give-no take' upon which the argument of the article is built, demonstrates the need to remove the organs as commodities of trade in the market where the forces of demand and supply will dictate the prices of the organs (Nadell, 2007, p.1). If organs are allowed to be commodities in the market will not only raise a lot of moral issues but will also drive organs out of reach from those who are poor and cannot afford the organs yet they are deserving parties.

On the moral issue, the 'no give-no take' principle absolves the issue of questioning the moral stands behind the decision to trade on organs. Secondly, the principle absolves the issue of inequality that is brought about by social classes, there are some things that some social classes deny other classes because they can afford, the principle, therefore, removes organs from the list of items under which it will be within social class domain rather it will be available for everybody regardless of social class context and this makes a lot of sense because everybody is endowed with organs (Green, 2007, p. 12). The only need that one has to fulfil to be a recipient is to be a donor.

In summary, organ donation has been and is better to remain a non-economic commodity. The 'no give-no take' principle cuts across moral and economic stances on equal measure, serving each with a required recipe. The writer uses coercive appeal throughout the article, where he notes the need for one's willingness to donate a solution to over 50,000 deaths that happen annually.

Comprehension

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

The paradox is that when collecting organs from the deceased, a line between life and death must be determined, but there is no agreed-upon way of determining where that line is. This is a problem because it makes collecting healthy organs from the deceased a controversial process that leaves doctors at risk of prosecution and overall lowers the number of organs collected from donors.

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

Brain death has been reduced as a result of improved automotive safety and reduced crime.

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

Tabarrok writes about how Iran has successfully eliminated the transplant organ shortage by developing a system in which donors are legally financially compensated for donation.

Purpose and Audience

1.     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.

From the title, I would have expected the essay to be about the literal meat market and the consumption of animals; it was a bit shocking (and a little gross) to see that it was referring to human organs. This is probably the reaction that Tabarrok wanted; it's a way to grab the reader's attention and make them want to read more.

2.     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 assumes that his readers will be wary of the idea of "organ harvesting" from live donors, believing that the phrase will evoke imagery of horror movies in readers' minds. When he talks about countries that are paying those willing to donate, he likely assumes that the reader will associate paying for organs with the black market. These assumptions are fair given the presence of such tropes in American society. This introduction is quite effective because it prompts the reader to first acknowledge that they have these feelings about organ donation before Tabarrok slowly urges his audience to challenge those feelings.

3.     According to Tabarrok, presumed consent "has less support in the US" than in other countries. What does he think might change that? Does he support "presumed consent"?

Tabarrok believes that presumed consent could gain more support if it were tested on a state level first. He also suggests implementing incentives like payments toward funeral expenses or discounted driver’s license fees for organ donors.

4.     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?

Tabarrok made the right decision in not elaborating on this topic. It is, as he said, an unsolvable debate; there's no way to know for sure where the line is between life and death. It's a philosophical question with an enormous amount of nuance that would be very difficult for him to try to address sufficiently.

Style and Structure

1.    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?

Tabarrok understands how financial factors drive people and shape society in a way that physicians or members of the clergy may not. He looks at things more logically focuses on the idea of supply and demand and uses this perspective to think of ways in which the organ donation system could be improved, which works well for him.

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

In paragraph 3, Tabarrok writes about how, in reaction to organ donation scarcity (cause), doctors routinely remove tissue from deceased patients without the consent of the patient or the patient's family (pg 608). In paragraph 11, Tabarrok discusses how Iran's legal payment system (cause) eliminated transplant organ shortage (effect).

These two examples work well to help Tabarrok make his points. The first example helps to show just how scarce transplantable organs are in the US; the procedure he discusses is completely legal. The second example shows just how effective programs that provide compensation can be in increasing organ donation.

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

Tabarrok uses inductive reasoning to conclude that financial compensation is the key to solving the organ shortage. This conclusion does seem reasonable given the success that other countries have had and the estimates he cites from Becker and Elias.

4.     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?

I believe that the passive voice is appropriate in these paragraphs; I don't believe there is any need to rewrite them to be in the active voice. In paragraph 4, Tabarrok writes in the passive voice that "innovation has occurred" in the US. The passive voice works well here because Tabarrok is not required to go into specifics as to whom championed these innovations or to use personal pronouns; such information is irrelevant to his point. In paragraph 8, Tabarrok writes that "everyone is considered to be a potential organ donor..." This works well in the passive voice for a similar reason. The passive voice allows Tabarrok to talk about how citizens are viewed across countries with similar laws without having to use said countries as a subject, which can be tricky to word succinctly.

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

While I understand that Tabarrok likely intended this title to be an ironic attention-grabber, I don't believe it was an appropriate choice for his purpose. It could be seen as dehumanizing to those involved in the organ donation process and also makes the idea seem gruesome.

 

***

Click for Next Lesson: