Can someone give feedback on my lnat practice essay on the sale of organs.?

I'm studying for the lnat and have recently been trying to practice section B essays which is my weakest skill. This is only my second attempt so i know it needs a lot of improvement but I really want to improve on my essay writing so any feedback would be super useful!

This essay question is 'The Government should legalise the sale of human organs.' Discuss

Heated debates have occurred on whether the Government should legalise the sale of human organs such as livers, kidneys and even lungs. However, the Government should not legalise this act for a variety of reasons. We can look at this question through a moral lens, does selling organs undermine the sanctity of life? Alternatively, looking at this question through an economic lens, selling organs could potentially open a can of worms as legalisation can widen the social disparity between the rich and poor, where wealthy members of society can prolong their lives just by purchasing organs. Or looking at the problem socially, is it the duty of the law to prevent citizens from causing potential harm to themselves and what organs can and can’t be sold?
Legalising the sale of human would create an arbitrary system of what organs can and can’t be sold which could potentially create a legal crisis. Questions would rise on whether each organ should have a standard price or should it differ depending on the ‘quality’. In this manner, legalization would create a social inequality and drive competition for organs. Wealthy members of society have the power to abuse and capitalize this law whilst poorer members can be pressured to conform to the capitalization of organs. With the current donation system, none of these problems arise and we can ensure that people are giving their organs for the right purposes. One of the main purposes of the Law is to protect all its citizens equally and fairly, Legalising the sale of organs would give those in desperation a final option that could be hazardous to their own health. Complications in surgery and incompatibility with organs would arguably cause a drive in health problems and even an overproduction in organs.
Another issue that arises with the sale of organs is whether it is morally right to do so in both religious and humanitarian concepts. In both, the sanctity of life is respected and promoted. Selling of organs undermines this and many argue it is immoral to disregard the human anatomy like such. Legalisation of organs almost devalues their sanctity in a sense – what moral message would we like to send to future generations. Children could be harvested and raised to sell their organs not only endangering the morals of society, but also our most vulnerable members.
Many argue that legalizing the sale enhances bodily autonomy, after all, why should the government interfere with our bodies and what we can and can’t do with it. We should be free to choose safe and legal methods which benefit both the seller and the consumer. It would not only solve the organ shortage but also pull away organ trafficking and black market sales and promote safe and healthy methods of organ transplants.
However, the shortage crisis does not have to be solved by selling the organs and forsaking the moral issues. To solve such an issue, we could create an ‘opt-out’ system of organ donation rather than ‘opt-in’ when patients are on their death beds. Instead of creating a fluctuating supply and demand of organs, instead we can promote donations to people who may have never thought of donating before. We can ensure organ transplants are done for the right moral purposes and ensure we protect against the abuse of human anatomy. Furthermore, legalizing the sale would arguably increase organ trafficking as trafficking rings can go undetected and use legalization as a cover.
To conclude, the government should not legalise the sale of human organs to uphold the purpose of law in protecting our poorest and most vulnerable members of society, and to protect the arbitrary application of law and abandonment of the sanctity of life. It would prevent the rise of organ trafficking and through paternalistic application of law, prevent citizens from doing actions which could potentially harm themselves in the future. With the ‘opt out’ system, we could solve the shortage whilst upholding morals and also prevent overproduction of organs which would arguably be a waste of government finances that could have been used for present day issues and preventing people from taking a last resort.

Reply 1

jsvuel

here's my feedback for your essay

•

firstly: very interesting read and i now want to research content on the sale of organs

•

in the second line of your opening paragraph you write ‘however’, but there is no argument or point you’ve previously mentioned to contradict with the word however. remove the word and begin the sentence with ‘the government should not legalise this..’ so the examiner knows you’re confident in your argument

•

in your opening paragraph you outline 3 different lens’ to look at the issue in (social, economic and moral) yet your second paragraph does not clearly correlate with any of those previously mentioned points on the topic. your introduction should clearly outline to the examiner exactly what you’re going on to talk about, and so they should see in your following paragraphs an expansion of what you’ve hinted at in the introduction. this paragraph has some great points, but none of them are mentioned in the introduction so it seems to a reader as if you’re throwing together a bunch of closely related points but not creating a thorough argument

•

example:

•

in the intro you say ‘selling organs could potentially open a can of worms as legalisation can widen the social disparity between the rich and poor, where wealthy members of society can prolong their lives just by purchasing organs’

•

in the first paragraph you say ‘Wealthy members of society have the power to abuse and capitalize this law whilst poorer members can be pressured to conform to the capitalization of organs’ - this point is close to what you originally mentioned, but it doesn’t truly expand on that idea. the examiners want an expansion of one clear point in each paragraph

•

example:

•

you mention in the second paragraph ‘Complications in surgery and incompatibility with organs would arguably cause a drive in health problems and even an overproduction in organs’ - this is not mentioned in the introduction, nor does it link to anything in the introduction. there’s no consistent flow that is easy to follow

•

your dispute of the counter argument is incredible, for you outline why the counter argument (about the shortage crisis) is wrong and you outline other solutions to that problem. it all clearly links together and you expertly demonstrate crushing the counter argument which is what the examiners want to see!! only downside, none of this was mentioned in the intro.

•

conclusion is also strong: clear summary of ideas with a mention of reform

•

my main point: make sure what you mention in your introduction manifests into the following paragraphs. your introduction should only be around 100 words so it has to be concise, but you need to ensure that you use the intro to prepare the examiner for what you’re going to discuss to make it as easy as possible for them to read