Rhetorical Analysis Of Michael Poulson's The Washington Post

There are many stories spread around that someone has voluntarily donated one of their organs to someone else, this is Michael Poulson, he just ends up regretting his decision to do so. He writes an article called,‘‘At 18 years old, he donated a kidney. Now, he regrets it.’’ The Washington Post. He spreads about his experience in how he felt before, during and after he donated his kidney to his stepfather’s brother. His purpose for writing is to share an experience that many people who have donated their organs have gone through. He wants to inform donors the possibilities of deadly consequences that can occur as a result of donating their organs because he was not given that information before he donated. The audience is those thinking of donating their organs because he targets them to think twice about their …show more content…
kidneys failed… the organ became injured or developed cancer. The more I learned, the more nervous I became about the logic of my decision at age 18 to donate… Donors are lauded for their altruism and bravery for what is promoted as a benign procedure with low long-term risk. We are told about neither the reality of donation risks nor the scarcity of data that’s available.’’ Although he seems to be using an appeal to logos, he is unable to give enough information to actually support it. His research consist of the voices of previous donors who have gone through the process; however, the audience never knows if he just places it to given as facts or to eliminate any positive outcomes of donating. He even mentions that there is no ‘‘good number about what happens to donors.’’ Like he had said before, he regrets donating his kidney and wishes he was more knowledgeable in the possible risk of donating. He remembers that often doctors would often make him think twice about his decision to donate, he was only 18 years old and may not realize fully what he is doing. Even his own mother would hold him back to do so; she