I could use some help getting started Professor. My hypothesis is ” If until after death that a person’s organ donor status is not known, then everyone would get treated equally in health care.” When I am doing this causal argument , do I get to pick from the 5 we went over in class? If so I think I would be better off doing the ” X causes Y” one because that goes hand in hand with my hypothesis.
Feedback I would like: What are your suggestions on how I should do this causal argument? Thank you
It so happens that your entire Hypothesis is Causal, Chance. It states the conditions under which a desired result can be obtained.
CONDITIONS: medical care providers would not know the organ donation status of a patient until after the patient’s death.
RESULT: medical staff would do their best to keep the patient alive.
There’s an essential complication you’ll need to demonstrate before your hypothesis makes any sense, of course. Isn’t it already true that medical staff do their best to keep patients alive? If so, their organ donor status is irrelevant.
So . . . your underlying causal proof will be to show that for some reason Organ Donors are less likely to receive the most conscientious life-saving care. And THAT, I presume, is because the urgent need for organs creates a perverse incentive to hope for the demise of the patient.
You can go about this two ways.
1. You can prove that doctors DO in fact look at their critical care patients FIRST as imminent donors of organs and SECOND as human beings to preserve alive.
OR
2. You can prove that there is NO PREJUDICE in favor of organs that would cause doctors to favor a patient’s death BUT ACKNOWLEDGE that there is STRONG RESISTANCE to organ donation among people who nonetheless BELIEVE in the myth of “expedited donation.”
If the purpose of your Argument is to recommend a procedure that will ENCOURAGE more organ donations, finding a way to keep donor status secret would certainly help in either case. In other words, the prejudice doesn’t have to be true to keep people from signing up to be donors. A percentage of potential donors will still be frightened no matter what safeguards are in place, but unless donation is compulsory, you’re probably not going to get their kidneys anyway.
Does this help?
1. Prove that doctors want organs enough to hasten a patient’s death.
OR 2. Prove that people think that’s true.
3. Prove that fear of “expedited death” keeps some people from signing up to donate organs.
4. Present a credible plan to keep donor status secret from doctors and staff.
5. Conclude that eliminating the fear of early death would encourage more donors to sign up.
this helps me a lot more thank you professor hodges. I think I will go with option number 2 .
Happy to be helpful, Chance. Thank you for asking. 🙂