This article by Alexander Tabarrok is a reaction to the increasing number of deaths due to organ shortages. According to the article, there is a huge shortage of organs and this has led to many deaths that could have been avoided if people had agreed to donate their organs to others in need. According to Tabbarok, 60,000 people die each year due to organ shortage; only 10,000 people are willing to donate their organs to others. It is therefore clear that 50,000 people die for lack of organs (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). Following this development, Tabarrok therefore gives a suggestion to solve the problem of organ shortage by proposing the moral solution. Organs should be donated on a tit-for-tat basis, whereby anyone willing to donate their organs will receive from others in case they need them for themselves. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Upon closer examination, organ donation is an act of will whereby those who are willing to donate their organs upon their death do so without having to do so. be forced or influenced to do so. Organ donation in itself raises many moral questions, because to donate an organ one must already be dead. The article gives a summary of the basis on which organ donation should be carried out, but the remedy appears to be one step closer to turning organs into commercial commodities on the market. In reality, the laws of many countries discourage the sale and acquisition of organs according to the market forces of supply and demand (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The argument behind the legal stance taken by many countries against organ trade is purely due to the cultural construction of the context. The give-and-take scenario suggested in this case will mean that organs will only be given to those who need them that day. provided that they are donors themselves. Signing the donation document is supposed to constitute an act of will of the person concerned. Signing an agreement to donate an organ will serve as insurance to automatically become a recipient (Nadell, 2008, p.511). Initially, it was not up to the organ recipient whether they wanted to donate or not. The new suggestion will deny organ transplantation to those who need organs and yet have not signed the donation form. The formal logic behind this article is that the author uses facts to appeal to the moral sense. The fact that a large number of people die each year due to lack of organs as a result of another person's mistake in not signing the donation form, which has implications on the issue of morality. If people can sign donation forms and allow others to use their organs when they die, or simply allow their organs to be harvested when they die, this serves the moral right to life (Tabarrok, 2002, p .1). In fact, the author notes that every year people die with all their organs intact. Those who would have lived longer thanks to donation also die because they lack someone to give them their organs. the two death scenarios constitute the basis of moral questioning, where we will question the necessity of dying naturally with organs that function well and at the same time depriving others of life by refusing to sign the death form. giver. It makes sense to save someone's life by signing a donation form alone and it will go a long way in saving the life of another person who normally does not know about the donor or can. 'be. Initially, organ donors..