ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: 2NE1 on January 22, 2014, 01:47:05 pm
-
I'm doing my English Oral Sac on this topic and I wanted a few more points to strengthen my argument.
-
well what is your contention to begin with?
-
What do you have already? Relatively simple case:
1. Establish the imperative - if we don't have mandatory donations, there will simply never be enough organs (see: statistics).
2. Explain why it is morally justified - how somebody's right to life is much more valuable than your right to what happens to your body after death (because the former informs the quality of their life to a much larger extent - it influences how much happiness they can experience, the choices they can make, etc. The latter only becomes a minor annoyance for people - you are rarely so invested in your body post-death that it actively detriments how much you can enjoy life). Explain how even if there was a case where your body mattered after death, social attitudes are often artificial, and so over time the existence of this policy would normalise the idea that your body-after-death isn't something you should actually care about.
3. Explain the broader consequences of this - how making organ donation mandatory will raise awareness for the situation concerning organ transplants in general, but also the lack of resources of the medical system and how it needs so much more assistance from everyone. This might incentivise action with other areas (eg. more blood donations too, more lobbying for medical investment, etc.)
-
The arguments in favour won't be your problem. The clearest argument is that in death people have an enormous capacity to help and to enrich the lives of others.
What will be a struggle is countering the ethical arguments. I'm in favour of this personally and I find it an almost insurmountable task, justifying it.
Personally, I think that you should look at how saving young loves are more important than allowing someone to dictate the nature of their death. It makes the strongest argument. You're not going to be able to discredit the arguments against organ donation, but you will be able to show that the need for organ donation should supersede these particular individual rights.
-
I think the main argument should be that 'if you would expect an organ donated to you in a life threatening situation, why aren't you willing to donate your organs to others who might face the same problems?'
-
What do you have already? Relatively simple case:
1. Establish...
I would argue similarly. But 2NE1, I think you should also consider (and dismiss) the point that if organ donation is mandatory, there might be far more organs being preserved than needed for transplantation. Then it would be costly to regulate and so on. How would you respond to that? And don't forget to rebut those who will complain about "the rights to our bodies"/religious stuff. Others might suggest it will open a floodgate to other weird things (some even think that people might kill other people so they can have their organs. Pretty extreme, but nonetheless an objection...)
It'd be good to consider the opposition of your contention and dismiss these points. :) It would show that you've considered all aspects of your issue, and if you can dismiss them too, well then you've got yourself a damn strong speech.
Good luck!
-
I think if you addressed it in a supply-and-demand hypothetical it may be more feasible. As in, there's a governing body that is provided by a list of those urgently awaiting organ donation and ONLY take the organs needed by those people. Over time, those lists will shorten as there is no real wait time and the number of people whose organs are being taken is drastically decreased.
/thisprobablysoundsreallydumb