Part 1

“Once an individual is on the list, they are then at the mercy of the system.”

This is biased language.  The word “mercy” has an obvious negative connotation, and should not be used.  I should use a phrase that implies that once someone is on the organ transplant list, there is nothing else that they can do.

“If buying and selling human organs were legal, information on the quality of organs would spread much more efficiently due to a large increase in buyers and sellers.”

This is a bit of a hasty generalization.  While this statement seems logical, it would be favorable to include evidence to support it.

Part 2

I envision dividing my research paper into three distinct sections in order to organize them on the poster.  The sections will be my research question, the discussion of my research question, and my conclusion.  The discussion will be in the middle of the poster, and it will be the focus of the poster.  This section will be divided into two subsections:  the efficiency of the market for human organs and the ethics of the market for human organs.  I am considering attaching a whiteboard to my poster, so I can draw some visual (supply and demand model) while presenting.

By putting together my presentation, I realized the necessity for defined goals as it comes to my research.  I mean, in order for me to say that the market for human organs is “good” or “bad,” I must first define what good and bad are.

The questions after my presentation really relate to this, because they somewhat represent what others define as good and bad.  For example, I received a few questions on how ethics will apply to my research, and the significance of ethics compared to other ways of judging the market for human organs.

Barsoum, R.. “Trends in unrelated-donor kidney transplantation in the developing world. ” Pediatric Nephrology 23.11 (2008): 1925-1929. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, ProQuest. Web.  11 Oct. 2010.

Cherry, Mark. Kidney for sale by owner. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005. Print.

Clemmons, A.. “Organ Transplantation: Is the Best Approach a Legalized Market or Altruism? ” Journal of Healthcare Management 54.4 (2009): 231-240. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web.  11 Oct. 2010

Demme, R.. “Ethical Concerns About an Organ Market. ” Journal of the National Medical Association 102.1 (2010): 46-50. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, ProQuest. Web.  11 Oct. 2010.

Harris, Curtis E., and Stephen P. Alcorn. “To Solve a Deadly Shortage: Economic Incentives for Human Organ Donation.” Issues in Law & Medicine 16.3 (2001): 213. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

Of these five sources, the last source excites me the most.  Just by skimming it, I was able to determine that it held quality economic analysis, as well as relevant statistics.  Because of this, I am very confident that it will be a significant part of my paper.  In addition, even though the author seems to support my original bias, the source examines the issue from multiple viewpoints.  This will be valuable when considering it as a source for writing my paper.

Stallybrass is saying that you should allow the thoughts of others to influence you as they naturally will, and attempting to create your own thoughts is useless.  He implies that you can only take the thoughts of others and put your own spin on them.

Stallybrass’s claim is somewhat valid when it comes to reseach.  Most of what I will do with my research project is take the information (thoughts) of others and refine them into my own conclusions.  However, Stallybrass significantly downplays the importance of the refining that I will do with other’s conclusions.  In fact, I argue that the way I interpret others thoughts has more weight than the thoughts of others.

I am interested in researching the market for human organs.

Because I want to find out if the market for human organs is a more efficient way getting organs to people who need them than what we have in place now.

And this is important because if the market for human organs is indeed more efficient, then that would save lives.

Questions:

1. Would you be willing to look at other ways of allocating human organs, beyond the market and donation?

2. Can you analyze the market for all human organs, or do different organs make for different acting markets?

3. Are there moral/religious restrictions associated with organ transfer that would not be represented in a market analysis of human organs?

The Enola Gay Smithsonian Exhibit is a really good example of how many people can interoperate an event in history differently by looking through a different point of view.  It seems that there are two very distinct reasons that the planned Enola Gay Exhibit created so much controversy.  The bomb’s survivors wanted the exhibit to portray the devastation that the atomic bombs caused, while World War II veterans wanted the exhibit to portray the Enola Gay as part of a proud end to the war.  For example, in Monroe Hatch’s letter to Martin Harwit, the Air Force Association refuses to support the originally planned exhibit because it focused too much on the horrors of war, failed to name Japan as the aggressor, and didn’t put the United States of America in a favorable light for ending the war.  Of course, it would be impossible to satisfy Japanese bomb survivors while still doing what the Air Force Association wanted.  Here, the difference between “in situ” and “in context” museum exhibits becomes very important.  Because an in context exhibit would satisfy only one side, the Smithsonian went with an in situ exhibit, as a sort of compromise.  One can recognize this by looking at the Enola Gay Exhibit summary on the Smithsonian’s website.  It describes the exhibit as being completely objective, and leaving much to interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The link that we are looking at is the Wikipedia article on the American Civil war.  The Wikipedia article first lists the Abolitionist Movement as a major cause of the South’s secession.  Along with that, the official story often deems President Lincoln as heroic because of his efforts to save the Union.  First of all, you may know that the Civil War wasn’t at all started or even fought to end slavery. In fact, during the war, Lincoln said in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.”  Also, it is important to view the Civil War from the side of the South.  Some historians believe that the South seceded not because of the anti-slavery ambitions of the North, but because of “Tariffs of Abominations.”  These tariffs were passed by congress soon after Lincoln was elected in an attempt to protect northern industry.  From the point of view of the Southerners, their secession was quite similar to the secession of America from the British Empire.  Unfair taxes by the Crown lead to the American Revolutionary War.  King George III, the ruler of England during the Revolutionary War, is often held in negative light by current Americans.  From this point of view, it is not hard to consider Abraham Lincoln as very tyrannical and an unfavorable president, instead of heroic.

Speech of Fredrick Douglass to American Anti-Slavery Society

The artifact from Fredrick Douglass’s life that I reviewed is an excerpt from one of his speeches that he made to the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1848.  It is worth noting that this speech was made just three years after Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass was published.

There are a few things that I found interesting in this excerpt.  First, I was interested by the word choice of Douglass when he gives his first reason for the abolition of slavery.  He says, “A MAN IS A MAN; that every man belongs to himself, and to no one else.”  Frankly, this phrase reminds me of something that Ayn Rand would say (a century later), but I am not sure if Douglass would ever agree with the objectivist philosophy.  Another interesting thing is the part of the speech when Douglass refers to a demonstration in Washington D.C. where “77 men, women and children conceived the idea that they were men, not three-fifths men.”  Here, Douglass was probably referring to the Three-Fifths compromise, which concerns the allocation of federal tax revenue to slave states.

The questions that this artifact yields concern Douglass’s thoughts on Ayn Rand and the Three-Fifths compromise.  Obviously, Douglass’s time was before that of Rand and objectivism, but it would be interesting to know his thoughts on the philosophy.  Would he consider himself an objectivist?  I am also curious about what Douglass meant by implying the Three-Fifths compromise, if he was.  Did people back then use the Three-Fifths compromise to justify slavery?  If so, how much of the constitution actually supported slavery?