Maya Gomez Annotated Bibliography: Compensating Kidney Donors

179

MAYA GOMEZ compiled an annotated bibliography to keep track of the research she was doing for her kidney donor compensation project. Below is a brief excerpt from her bibliography, showing entries for three of her sources. (We include these particular entries because the sources are reprinted in this book, so you can compare Gomez’s summaries to the sources themselves.) Note that Gomez titled her bibliography, but did not add an introduction indicating its purpose and scope because she did not intend for it to be read by anyone other than her instructor and herself. (See Chapter 20 to see what an introduction to an annotated bibliography might look like.) As she read each source, Gomez used the Ways In activities “How do I write a summary?” and “How do I draft a commentary for an annotated bibliography?” in the Guide to Writing.

For more about writing an annotated bibliography, see Chapter 20.

Notice that each entry in the annotated bibliography has three parts:

  1. the MLA style citation (later used in the works-cited lists for the Report and Analysis essays)

  2. a summary of the source’s main ideas and argument

  3. a commentary reflecting on how the source might be used in a report or analysis

As you read,

image Basic Features

An Informative Explanation

A Clear, Logical Organization

Smooth Integration of Sources

Appropriate Explanatory Strategies

Why do you think citations begin with the last name of the first author?

Becker, Gary S., and Julio J. Elías. “Cash for Kidneys: The Case for a Market in Organs.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, 18 Jan. 2014, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579322560004817176.

How well does this thesis statement explain the main idea, or gist, of the article?

How helpful is it to identify the authors’ explanatory strategies?

180

Economists Becker and Elías argue for a straightforward but highly controversial proposal to solve the kidney shortage by paying people to donate their extra kidney for transplantation. To demonstrate the dire need for kidneys to transplant, they cite statistics, illustrated by a graph showing the difference between the numbers on the waiting list and the low, flat rate of transplant surgeries. They use their own research to refute the alternative solution that changing from informed to implied consent for deceased donors would reduce the shortage. They also refute objections that payment would not solve the problem, that it is immoral, that it would exploit the poor, and that it would reduce altruistic donations. On the issue of morality (the main criticism made by opponents of compensation), Becker and Elías compare the immorality of paying for kidneys to the immorality of dooming “thousands” on the waiting list to death.

Why refer to Becker’s credentials?

Why compare this proposal to Posner’s? What does this commentary lead you to expect about Gomez’s report?

I could use this proposal as an example of a radical or extreme solution, but one offered by Becker, a Nobel Prize–winning economist at the University of Chicago, and Elías, a professor of economics at a university in Argentina. Becker and Elías have the authority to carry off a proposal this bold. Their proposal also stands in sharp contrast to the NKF’s opposition to financial compensation and Eric Posner’s compromise. I’ll certainly use it in my report.

“Financial Incentives for Organ Donation.” National Kidney Foundation, 1 Feb. 2003, www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03.

How clear is this analysis of the source’s main argument?

How fair and impartial is this annotation?

This NKF position statement claims that the prohibition against financial incentives in the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) should not be removed. It presents a concise summary of the main arguments against payment: paying for body parts devalues human life, paying would be coercive and exploitative, and paying wouldn’t be effective in eliminating the shortage and might discourage altruistic donors. After acknowledging that other organizations support pilot studies to see whether payment would help, the NKF asserts its opposition to pilot studies, arguing that, once done, paying for kidneys cannot be undone. The statement concludes by repeating the NKF’s commitment to working to solve the problem through improved public relations and professional practices, but not by paying for kidneys.

How important is the date and author in choosing sources?

Compare to Gomez’s report and analysis.

I think I will use the NKF position statement as the voice of the status quo. Note that it was written in 2003 and hasn’t been changed since, even though NOTA has been amended several times to allow paired kidney exchanges and to limit disincentives. I could compare the NKF statement to Becker and Elías’s recent proposal, “Cash for Kidneys.” Or I could compare it to Satel’s op-ed, “When Altruism Isn’t Moral.” Using Satel’s critique of the current altruism-only policy would enable me to contrast the NKF’s moral values argument.

181

Posner, Eric. “A Moral Market.” Slate, 17 Oct. 2014, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/10/kidney_donation_exchange_to_increase_donated_organs_ethically_and_altruistically.html.

How do transitions like unlike, because, and therefore help readers?

In this article, law professor Eric Posner proposes a solution to the kidney shortage. He argues that, unlike the unpopular proposal to sell kidneys, his proposal for an “altruism exchange” would be politically acceptable because it is based on altruism, not the profit motive. He supports this argument by analyzing the public enthusiasm for the Norwood Act, which shows that people do not object to a kidney being exchanged for something of value; rather, they object to the donor profiting from such an exchange. Therefore, Posner proposes that a donor should be rewarded with an organ transplant (for someone other than the donor) or with a monetary donation to the donor’s preferred charity.

How does Gomez explore ways of synthesizing her sources?

If I focus my comparative analysis on the morality of altruism, I could use Satel as a critique of Posner. Is Posner’s altruism-exchange proposal really different from the NKF-supported altruism-only transplant policy? Satel critiques an altruism-only transplant policy because it forces everyone to follow the same view of morality. (What’s the opposite of moral pluralism?)