“people Should Be Allowed to Sell Organs”

In Walter Williams’ column on the sale of organs, he takes the stance that people should be allowed to sell their own organs. While I agree with his conclusion, I do not support the reasoning behind his argument. Although some of the author’s reasoning is solid, the majority of his argument is based on assumptions that are unwarranted. William’s also uses several examples that were unreasonable. Furthermore, the organization of the article made it difficult to read and comprehend.

In the second paragraph, Walter Williams presents valid data on the lack of donations versus the demands for respective organs to support his argument. However, he follows that sound evidence with an assumption that “organ shortages would disappear overnight if people were permitted to sell [them].” There is no evidence to support that claim. In paragraph seven, while arguing against allowing the medical elite to decide transplant recipients, the author makes another assumption that all doctors are prejudiced and unfair. Williams makes another assumption in paragraph nine that all people would act the way he would in the hypothetical situation of organs becoming a part of one’s estate after death.

Throughout the column, Williams uses example scenarios to support his position that organs should be a sellable good. In the fifth paragraph he suggests that if the readers believes organ donation is such a good idea, that the services and supplies required should be donated as well. In an ideal world, that would be a great suggestion, however, doctors make their living performing surgeries and supplies cost money. In paragraph seven, Williams gives an example of television show where a doctor refuses a heart transplant to a patient that smoked to support his claim that transplant recipients should not be decided by the medical elite. This example is extremely unreasonable as it is from a show that may or may not be authentic. In the last paragraph, he tries to draw