In the essay “Stripped for parts” written, by Jennifer Khan the general concept she is addressing is how morbid it is for dead people and their bodies to be harvested for it organs. The way she starts the essay is by using a narrative approach, and the reason there is the narrative approach is for more effect of emotion to the readers. Her thesis statement that grabbed my attention the most was “Compared with such micro scare cures, transplants- which consist of salvaging entire organs from a heart- beating cadaver and sewing them into a different body- seem crudely mechanical, even medieval (124.)” This was the quote that best fit the essays perspective since it really brings up how it is not okay for this to be done to people. Khan uses all
…show more content…
The one that convinced me was the use of the anesthesiologist about his opinion and his other colleagues. Certain researchers are also put in to give facts about chances of survival in the near future. “Few researchers predict that human- harvested organs will become obsolete anytime soon, however; one cardiovascular pathologist says… we’ll still be using this a century from now (125).” What really stuck is when they said how much longer in the future we would still be using the same process. Later in the paragraph, he also addressed “You tell yourself it’s for a good cause, which it is, a very good cause, but you’re still butchering a human (125).” Charles Murry says this and I think that it is significant to what the author is trying to express the whole time. Also, Murry is one of the biggest influences in her …show more content…
The whole time she is speaking in the essay, she includes a lot of information that backs up what she is feeling. It goes back and forth from facts to the story line she added into the text. The way that she expresses the words and the strong opinion on how she does not believe harvesting organs out of people is the right thing to do. The way she went about the essay, it is more inductive because it is not completely based on facts since there is a separate story line within the essay. The whole entire essay is not negatives but the negatives definitely out way the positives. For example yes, it is a nice thing to donate your organs to a person when you no longer need them anymore, but it is still disrupting the dead. One of the quotes that go back to the story line is “Two hours pass, and the surgeons make progress. Despite the procurement team’s best efforts, however, most of the organs had already been lost (128)”. This puts into perspective that when it is thought about not all the organs is actually used after the person is dissected. Which brings up the point… is it really worth giving up your body and not having a peaceful after life if there is a chance of the organs not working in the next
The one that convinced me was the use of the anesthesiologist about his opinion and his other colleagues. Certain researchers are also put in to give facts about chances of survival in the near future. “Few researchers predict that human- harvested organs will become obsolete anytime soon, however; one cardiovascular pathologist says… we’ll still be using this a century from now (125).” What really stuck is when they said how much longer in the future we would still be using the same process. Later in the paragraph, he also addressed “You tell yourself it’s for a good cause, which it is, a very good cause, but you’re still butchering a human (125).” Charles Murry says this and I think that it is significant to what the author is trying to express the whole time. Also, Murry is one of the biggest influences in her …show more content…
The whole time she is speaking in the essay, she includes a lot of information that backs up what she is feeling. It goes back and forth from facts to the story line she added into the text. The way that she expresses the words and the strong opinion on how she does not believe harvesting organs out of people is the right thing to do. The way she went about the essay, it is more inductive because it is not completely based on facts since there is a separate story line within the essay. The whole entire essay is not negatives but the negatives definitely out way the positives. For example yes, it is a nice thing to donate your organs to a person when you no longer need them anymore, but it is still disrupting the dead. One of the quotes that go back to the story line is “Two hours pass, and the surgeons make progress. Despite the procurement team’s best efforts, however, most of the organs had already been lost (128)”. This puts into perspective that when it is thought about not all the organs is actually used after the person is dissected. Which brings up the point… is it really worth giving up your body and not having a peaceful after life if there is a chance of the organs not working in the next