One Life Becomes Eight Lives: Become an Organ Donor

Susan Meyer                                                                                                                                      

ENG 102-048

Dr. Carriero

Toulmin Logic Essay

25 April 2013

One Life Becomes Eight Lives: Become an Organ Donor

According to The Harvest Fields, “53.3 million people die each year” (“Population Statistics”). The question is, are we doing everything we can to prevent these deaths?  Not all deaths are preventable; however, there are many deaths that could be prevented. Organ donors have the power to save up to eight lives; each person should be an organ donor so that no one dies due to organ failure. Organ donation is a problem in the world today that needs to be recognized. There are far too many lives lost that could easily be saved by organ donation. Organ donation is something that everyone needs to consider not only does it save the lives of up to eight people, becoming an organ donor myself, I know that if I am ever in need, it will save my life. Organ donation can save the lives of people of all ages.

            According to the Organ Donation Network, “19 people die each day waiting for transplants because of the shortage of available donor organs” (“Statistics”). This quote shows that many people die per day when in reality, no one should be dying of organ failure. According to The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “one person [who becomes an organ donor] can save up to eight lives” (“The Need is Real”). This quote shows that two more organ donors per day could potentially save the lives of those nineteen people that die each day. A little over “100,000 people in the United States are on waiting lists for kidneys, hearts, livers, lungs, and other organs” (“Organ Transplantation”). Out of the 100,000 people in need of an organ transplant, only “75 people receive organ transplants each day” (“Statistics”). Organ donation is not a problem this world should be facing. People should not be dying each day because there are not enough organs to go around. Two more organ donors, per day, could save the lives of the nineteen lives lost each day.

            Becoming an organ donor saves lives. According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,

Carlee Baladez was born with a life-threatening heart condition and was just shy of 2 years old when she received a new heart in 2001. Now a decade later, Carlee is an active girl, participating in just about anything that she can talk her way into. She and her family are actively involved in Southwest Transplant Alliance’s annual Texas Rangers Organ Donor Game and in annual promotions with the Dallas Mavericks. (“Life Stories”)

This quote shows how Carlee’s heart transplant gave her an opportunity to live her life. Not only is she alive because of the transplant but she is able to participate in many different activities, including softball, as shown below in figure one.

 

Fig. 1. Carlee Baladez received a heart transplant when she was only two years old and now is an active child who enjoys playing softball (“Life Stories”).

            I would never like to see a day where I would be subject to death because there are not enough organs available to save my life, if I was ever in an accident causing me to need an organ donation. Nor would I ever like to see one of my close friends or family members lose their lives due to organ failure. By donating one’s organs, one is not harmed in any way and is able to give the gift of life to up to eight people. For this reason, after learning about organ donation I have registered to be an organ donor. Leaving this earth, there is nothing more I could wish to save than the lives of eight other people.

Some people who are opposed to becoming organ donors claim that it puts them at risk. They argue that an organ transplant could endanger their chance to be saved by a doctor. They believe the doctors, knowing that they are an organ donor; will not try their best to keep them alive. This is assumed by many people because if an organ donor dies, someone’s life, even a few others’ lives, could be saved. Another concern that many critics have is that they will not actually be dead when their death certificate is signed. People who believe this think that their organs are taken right away when they are pronounced dead and fear that they may have been wrongfully examined. An open-casket funeral is often believed not to be an option for those who choose to be organ donors. Many believe that due to the surgery done to remove the organs that the physical appearance of their body will be too damaged to show in an open-casket. People also claim that becoming an organ donor is against their religious beliefs and do not wish to go against their own morals.

Others who struggle with illnesses also believe that their organs may not be suitable for another human being. Teens often do not believe they are old enough to make the decision to be an organ donor.   Many people also believe that their families will be charged when their organs are donated. They do not wish to burden their family members with fees in order to donate their organs. The rich and famous are often believed to be put at the top of the waiting list for organ donation. Many critics decide not to donate because they think that if they were ever in need of an organ they would not get one because they are not famous. Some people argue that no one will be able to use their organs because they are too old. Due to their old age, they believe their organs would not be able to work properly to support another person’s needs. Though there appear to be many negative affiliations with becoming an organ donor when one looks further into these beliefs they will find that they are simply myths.

According to the Mayo Clinic, the many beliefs about organ donation previously mentioned are misconceptions. These myths prove to be false and are not justifiable reasons to not become an organ donor. According to the Mayo Clinic, “When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors will focus on saving the patient’s life, not someone else’s. The patient will be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency. The doctor in charge of the patient’s care has nothing to do with transplantation” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). This quote explains that a doctor is entitled to save the life of the patient to his best ability, regardless of whether or not they are an organ donor. Organ donation does is not guaranteed to save lives; transplants do not always work. If a doctor could guarantee the patient’s life but not the lives of the others that the patient’s organs could save, he or she would save the life that they are able to save.  As mentioned earlier, many fear that their death certificate will be signed when they are not actually dead; however, this is entirely false. The Mayo Clinic claims, “people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests (at no charge to their families) to determine that they’re truly dead than those who haven’t agreed to organ donation” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). Not only will someone who has signed up for organ donation be declared dead, they will be tested multiple times to be certain of this conclusion. Critics have argued that they cannot have an open-casket funeral if they sign up to be organ donors. The Mayo Clinic refutes this argument in declaring, “Organ and tissue donation doesn’t interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor’s body is clothed for the burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation … Because the donor is clothed and lying on his or her back in the casket, no one can see the difference” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). This quote explains that being an organ donor will not prevent one from having an open-casket funeral; no one will be able to tell the difference.

Many people argue that organ donation is against their religion; however, according to the Mayo Clinic, “Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most religions. This includes Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and most branches of Judaism” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). Many religions support organ donation and do not argue against it. If one is unsure of their religious affiliation’s decision they could simply speak to a member or their clergy. Others believe that their illness will prevent them from donating their organs. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify one from donating organs” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). This quote shows that most illnesses do not affect organ donation. If one is under eighteen years old, it is true that they cannot legally sign up to be an organ donor; however, according to the Mayo Clinic, one’s “parents can authorize this decision [organ donation]. One can express to their parents their wish to donate, and their parents can give their consent knowing that it’s what you wanted” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). Many believe is is costly to be an organ donor; however, “there is no cost to donors or their families for organ or tissue donation” (“Learn the Facts”). This quote shows that neither the organ donor nor their family is charged for organ donation. According to the Mayo Clinic, “The rich and famous aren’t given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). This quote shows that regardless of wealth or fame, everyone is given the same opportunity to receive a transplant.

Though people argue they are too old, according to the Mayo Clinic, “There’s no defined cutoff age for donating organs. Organs have been transplanted from their donors in their 70s and 80s. The decision to use one’s organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”). In fact, “People of all ages from infants to great-grandparents are on the national transplant waiting list” (“Statistics & Facts for People over 50”). This quote shows that regardless of age, one can be in need of an organ donation which implies that people of all ages are needed in organ donation. Not all people who receive transplants are young,

When Dr. Yeon Won Bae couldn’t find the energy to do the things he loved, he assumed it was stress. It turned out that his kidneys were only working at 30% capacity due to kidney disease. He quickly began to make every effort to stop the progression of the disease. Despite these efforts, his condition worsened and eventually became life threatening during a visit to his native North Korea. Dr. Bae returned to the United States and underwent extensive dialysis. In his weakened state, the strain of dialysis was almost unbearable. He decided to request a kidney transplant. Three months after being placed on the transplant list, a donor was found. Upon waking from his transplant surgery, Dr. Bae recalls, “On that day, I began my days with renewed hope, sharing a life with an unnamed donor who had given me his organ as the rest of his body passed to the other side … I felt as if I had passed through a long dark tunnel of fear and everything now seemed new, bright, and beautiful. (“Life Stories)

Fig. 2. Dr. Yeon Won Bae would not have survived without his kidney transplant which he received later in age.

This quote shows that transplants are not available right away; Dr. Bae had to wait three months for his transplant. This quote also explains that people who need transplants are sometimes over the age of fifty. There are many myths regarding organ donation, however, many find that in doing the research, organ donation is well worth it.

If everyone was an organ donor, there would be more than enough organs to go around. If 53 million, of the 53.3 million of people who die in the world per year were organ donors 424,000,000 lives could potentially be saved worldwide. The U.S. alone has 100,000 people on the waiting list for an organ transplant; this is less than one percent of the potential 424,000,000 organs that could be available. Signing up is simple, it takes only two minutes. One could sign up when they receive or renew their license or could sign up online on the Donate Life website. Organ donation does not affect one’s life until after death. There is no better gift to give as one passes on than the gift of eight lives.

Click Here to View PowerPoint

Works Cited

"The Harvest Fields • Statistics 2013." Statistics Population, World, Countries, Cities, Religions, Roman Catholic, Muslims. Wholesome Words, 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

"Learn the Facts." Donatelifenet RSS2. Donate Life America, Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

"Life Stories." Donate the Gift of Life. Health Resource and Services Administration, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Lowe Cape Town. “Organ Donor Foundation TV ad - 'Leila' .” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 31. October. 2011. Web. 25. April. 2013.

"The Need Is Real: Data." Donate the Gift of Life. Health Resource and Services Administration, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

"Organ Transplantation." The Hastings Center. The Hastings Center, 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Staff, Mayo Clinic. "Organ Donation: Don't Let These Myths Confuse You." Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 03 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

"Statistics." Organ Donation Network. TNNOD.org, 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

 

Toulmin’s Argument Model Outline

Susan Meyer

ENGL102-048

Toulmin’s Argument Model Outline

29 Arpil 2013

Claim:
People should become organ donors because each person has the power to save up to eight lives.

Warrant:
The lives of others are valuable.
Once one passes on, they can no longer use their organs.
Organs are valuable and can save lives.
Saving the lives of others is a rewarding feeling.

 

Backing:

I would never like to see a day where I would be subject to death because there are not enough organs available to save my life, if I was ever in an accident causing me to need an organ donation. Nor would I ever like to see one of my close friends or family members lose their lives due to organ failure. By donating one’s organs, one is not harmed in any way and is able to give the gift of life to up to eight people. For this reason, after learning about organ donation I have registered to be an organ donor. Leaving this earth, there is nothing more I could wish to save than the lives of eight other people.

Grounds: 
1. According to the Organ Donation Network, “19 people die each day waiting for transplants because of the shortage of available donor organs” (“Statistics”).
2. According to The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “one person [who becomes an organ donor] can save up to eight lives” (“The Need is Real”).
3. A little over “100,000 people in the United States are on waiting lists for kidneys, hearts, livers, lungs, and other organs” (“Organ Transplantation”).
4. Out of the 100,000 people in need of an organ transplant, only “75 people receive organ transplants each day” (“Statistics”).

Qualifiers:
Few religions are against organ donation.
Most people are able to donate their organs.
Sometimes organ donation can delay the donor's funeral process for a few extra days.

Counter Argument:
1. As an organ donor, one would not be equally treated if ever in the hospital. The doctor will not try as hard to save the life of an organ donor because when they die they can save more lives.
2. Someone who becomes an organ donor may be get their death certificate signed after one had falsely analyzed their death.
3. One who is an organ donor cannot have an open-casket funeral.
4. One cannot be an organ donor because it is against their religion.
5. Due to illness, one's organs may not be of any use to another person.
6. One cannot sign up to become an organ donor if they are under eighteen years old.
7. As an organ donor one's family will have to pay the expenses once they die.
8. Rich and famous people are treated first and do not wait their turn on the waiting list like everyone else.
9. One may be too old to donate their organs.

Rebuttal:
1. According to the Mayo Clinic, “When you go to the hospital for treatment, doctors will focus on saving the patient’s life, not someone else’s. The patient will be seen by a doctor whose specialty most closely matches your particular emergency. The doctor in charge of the patient’s care has nothing to do with transplantation” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
2. The Mayo Clinic claims, “people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests (at no charge to their families) to determine that they’re truly dead than those who haven’t agreed to organ donation” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
3. The Mayo Clinic states, “Organ and tissue donation doesn't interfere with having an open-casket funeral. The donor’s body is clothed for the burial, so there are no visible signs of organ or tissue donation  Because the donor is clothed and lying on his or her back in the casket, no one can see the difference” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
4. Many people argue that organ donation is against their religion; however, according to the Mayo Clinic, “Organ donation is consistent with the beliefs of most religions. This includes Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and most branches of Judaism” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
5. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Very few medical conditions automatically disqualify one from donating organs” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
6. If one is under eighteen years old, it is true that they cannot legally sign up to be an organ donor; however, according to the Mayo Clinic, one’s “parents can authorize this decision [organ donation]. One can express to their parents their wish to donate, and their parents can give their consent knowing that it’s what you wanted” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
7. Many believe it is costly to be an organ donor; however, “there is no cost to donors or their families for organ or tissue donation” (“Learn the Facts”).
8. According to the Mayo Clinic, “The rich and famous aren’t given priority when it comes to allocating organs. It may seem that way because of the amount of publicity generated when celebrities receive a transplant, but they are treated no differently from anyone else” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).
9. Though people argue they are too old, according to the Mayo Clinic, “There’s no defined cutoff age for donating organs. Organs have been transplanted from their donors in their 70s and 80s. The decision to use one’s organs is based on strict medical criteria, not age” (“Organ Donation: Don’t Let Myths Confuse You”).

 

 

Works Cited

"A Positive Chain Reaction: The Sorianos One Year Later." Standford Hospital & Clinics. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

"Be a Lifesaver: Become an Organ Donor." Organ Donation Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.

"Becoming a Donor." Organdonor.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

"THE NEED IS REAL." Organdonor.gov. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.

"Organ Transplantation." Organ Transplantation. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.

Staff, Mayo Clinic. "Organ Donation: Don't Let These Myths Confuse You." Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 03 Apr. 2010. Web. 04 Apr. 2013.

"Understanding Donation." Donatelifenet RSS2. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.

Book Work

Exercise 2.8

"According to Gerard Jones, violent media can actaully have positive effects on young people because" it exposes them to the real world so that they can learn to make their own decisions and understand that not all people can be trusted. "Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children beacause" it allows them to become opinionated and powerful. "Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that" violent media assists children by helping them improve their own self-knowledge. He aslso stats that violent media helps children to feel and experience rage in their own way. Violent media also helps children learn to feel impowered and develop a sense of self, according to Jones. "However," many people believe violent media causes a lot of added violence in today's society. "All in all," I believe violent media is something we must accept as a part of culture that helps children gain an understanding of the real world.

Practical Argument: A Text and Anthology by Laurie G Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell (Page 51)

Exercise 12.1

1.) Refering to tanktops as "wife-beaters" is an issue because "wife-beaters" are people who abuse women, not something you wear around to look good.

2.) Defining the word "wife-beater" is a problem because it has many different origins of where the name began. Another problem is that because it relates to violence it provides unstable messages to people who wear them.

3.) The author includes the definition to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what is being stated. In order to have an argument, it must be clear what the argument is focussing on. By listing the different definitions, the author shows that a "wife-beater" is used to discribe a violent act and also a fashion statement.

4.) Many opposing arguments state that the term "wife-beater" is not used in relation with spousal abuse, but as an article of popculture. The author refutes this statement by claiming that it is not the term that bothers her but the poor signal that it sends to men.

5.) I do not think that a picture of a man wearing a wife-beater would strengthen her argument because in the picture, the man is simply wearing the article of clothing and is causing no harm to anyone while wearing it.

Practical Argument: A Text and Anthology by Laurie G Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell (Page 324)

Beep, Beep: Cochlear Implants Help the Deaf Hear

Susan Meyer

ENG 102-048

Rogerian Argument Essay

29 April 2013

Beep, Beep: Cochlear Implants Help the Deaf Hear

            Deafness is not something most people think of on a day to day basis unless they know someone who is deaf and sees them struggling to communicate with the outside world. One of my closest friends is deaf, legally blind, and suffers with Asperger’s, a form of autism that slows social skills. Of all of these handicaps my friend, Rachael, faces there is not a cure, but there is a way medically to enhance her hearing. Enhancing her hearing would tremendously change her life, for the better. Cochlear implants are highly controversial, though they can take away from the deaf culture, having some sense of hearing will greatly impact those who are hearing impaired and they will significantly change their everyday lives.

            According to Elif Baysal, “Congenital hearing loss is a common birth defect that affects approximately 1-3 of every 1000 births” (“The Polymorphisism of the MBL2”).  This quote proves hearing loss to be a significant problem in today’s world. Hearing loss has no cure; however, many people who undergo hearing loss use hearing aids and some get a cochlear implant. What is a cochlear implant, anyways? As shown in figure one, it “is a device that provides direct electrical stimulation to the auditory (hearing) nerve in the inner ear” (“Cochlear Implants”). Cochlear implants are not suitable for everyone. In fact, to have the implant, a patient must first see a surgeon at the “cochlear implant center [where] more testing is done to determine whether the person is a suitable candidate” (“Cochlear Implants”). This quote explains that before receiving a cochlear implant one must first see a surgeon to discuss the possibility of the surgery. Benefits from a cochlear implant depend on a variety of different factors, such as “age, language skills, and motivation of patient and family members” (“Cochlear Implants”). There are people who are better suited candidates than others. Adults who are best suited for a cochlear implant include people who

have severe to profound hearing loss in both ears, have had limited benefit from hearing aids, have no other medical problems that would make the surgery risky, have a strong desire to be a part of the hearing world and communicate through listening, speaking, and speechreading, and have lost their hearing after speech and language development. (“Cochlear Implants”)

This quote shows that if people have certain specifications, the implant is likely to be very successful. Children who “have profound hearing loss in both ears, have had limited benefit from hearing aids, are healthy and have no medical conditions that would make the surgery risky” are the best candidates for a cochlear implant, showing that children with certain conditions can also have a successful experience with the cochlear implant (“Cochlear Implants”). By requiring those who wish to get a cochlear implant first to discuss the procedure with a surgeon and determine whether or not they are a good candidate, shows that cochlear implants are beneficial when implanted on a suitable patient.

Fig. 1. Cochlear implants are implanted in the inner ear and connect sounds from the outside that are transferred to the brain (Google Images).

                Imagine for a moment not being able to hear. Someone with hearing loss cannot hear in the same way hearing people do. Though some hearing loss is not as poor as others, hearing loss makes everyday life difficult. Someone with hearing loss may not be able to talk on the phone, or struggles to do so. People who struggle with hearing loss may not be able to hear their teachers in the classroom setting and then are put into a deaf program where they may not be as academically challenged as they are in a regular classroom setting. For example, my friend Rachael attends Newton North High School after previously attending Bristol Plymouth High School where she was not challenged to reach her full potential simply because the deaf program she was in did not challenge her intellectual ability. Rachael Weber often said to me, “Just because I am deaf, does not mean I am stupid. My teacher’s treat me like a child” (Rachael Weber). She should not feel as if teachers are giving her easier work because she is deaf. As shown below in figure two, in that it is visible to the eye below the cochlear implant is visible like a hearing aid; however, it is much more powerful because it connects directly to the inner ear. Having a cochlear implant enables those who are deaf to experience sound. Though the cochlear implant does not cure deafness, it helps them to hear significantly better. With a cochlear implant, it would be easier for people who have hearing loss to be able to work with others, who are hearing, and to be more involved in society because they will be able to communicate better with the outside world.

Fig. 2. Every child deserves to be able to experience life the way they chose to do so (Google Images).

            According to Alexandra Quittner, “Children with sensorineural hearing loss demonstrate less verbal skills, poorer academic achievement, and delayed behavior and social development compared with normal-hearing peers” (“Effects of Maternal Sensitivity”). This medical condition shows that by receiving a cochlear implant, people with hearing loss would be given some hearing, allowing them to achieve at a higher level. By utilizing new technological advances, people with hearing loss can be given back some, but not all, of their hearing. Having some hearing will allow them to be able to “acquire verbal skills more easily, achieve higher in academics due to better communication, and behave and develop in a social environment in which they can interact with others more efficiently” (“Cochlear Implants”).

            As cochlear implants become more popular “the need for individuals with profound hearing loss to know ASL has diminished, and, consequently, the need to be established in the deaf community” (Cochlear Implants Change Deaf Culture).  This quote shows that the increase of people receiving cochlear implants is causing the deaf culture to decline. Tina Childress claims that, “If you have to pick one thing that is the unifying factor for deaf culture; it’s the use of ASL” (Cochlear Implants Change Deaf Culture). Childress explains that the reason deaf culture is diminishing is because people who are receiving cochlear implants are beginning to stray away from using American Sign Language.  About “4 percent [of deaf people] … are born deaf via genetic inheritance … [their parents believe] there are two trains of thought: the medical and the cultural” when it comes to considering a cochlear implant (Cochlear Implants Change Deaf Culture). This quote shows that deaf people feel that there is more to being deaf than just hearing loss; the deaf culture provides for a powerful sense of community. My friend, Rachael Weber, plans to receive a cochlear implant and will be attending Gallaudet University in the fall, a university created for the deaf.

There are many ways to feel accepted in society without getting a cochlear implant. Receiving a cochlear implant is a choice. It is not mandatory. Though many may feel that it takes dignity away from deaf culture, for those who wish to have it, why not let them do so. Due to the fact that receiving a cochlear implant is a choice, I believe it is a valid advancement for those who seek it. Others are also concerned about the potential risk factors that are brought about by cochlear implantation. Personal choice is a large factor contributing to cochlear implantation. Whether one believes it is right or wrong to have one, it comes down to the individual’s decision to do so.

            There is a way to receive a cochlear implant and keep in touch with the deaf culture. To reach this compromise, one who receives a cochlear implant could continue using sign language on a daily basis to keep the deaf culture alive. By continuing to use sign language and using the cochlear implant as more of an aid, rather than something to solely depend on, one who receives the cochlear implant will not feel as if deafness is something to be ashamed of. Receiving a cochlear implant would not only allow one to hear better but will give them the opportunity to achieve to their highest potential. Cochlear implants do not rule out deaf culture, rather than viewing cochlear implants as a cure, they should be seen to be a tool used to enhance learning and communication while continuing to use sign language and remaining a proud member of the deaf culture.

           

 

Works Cited

"Cochlear Implants." Cochlear Implants. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Ibrahim, Nora. "Cochlear Implants Change Deaf Culture as Importance of American Sign Language Diminishes." The Daily Illini. N.p., 29 Apr. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

"Language understanding and vocabulary of early cochlear implanted children." International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77.2 (2013): 184+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Mirzahasanloo, Taher S., et al. "Environment-adaptive speech enhancement for bilateral cochlear implants using a single processor." Speech Communication 55.4 (2013): 523+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

"October 2011 Archives." F11 PSY1001 Sections 14 & 15:. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Ozdemir, SuLeyman, et al. "Factors contributing to limited or non-use in the cochlear implant systems in children: 11 years experience." International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77.3 (2013): 407+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Quittner, Alexandra L., et al. "Effects of Maternal Sensitivity and Cognitive and Linguistic Stimulation on Cochlear Implant Users' Language Development over Four Years." Journal of Pediatrics Feb. 2013: 343-348.e3. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

"The polymorphisms of the MBL2 and MIF genes associated with Pediatric Cochlear Implant Patients." International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77.3 (2013): 338+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Tribushinina, Elena, Steven Gillis, and Sven De Maeyer. "Infrequent word classes in the speech of two- to seven-year-old children with cochlear implants and their normally hearing peers: A longitudinal study of adjective use." International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77.3 (2013): 356+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Weber, Nancy. Personal interview. 1 Feb. 2013.

Weber, Rachael. Personal interview. 1 Feb. 2013.

 

Twenty-one Kills: Lower the Drinking Age to Eighteen

Susan Meyer

ENGL 102-048

Causal Argument Essay

25 April 2013

Twenty-one Kills: Lower the Drinking Age to Eighteen

            Prohibition in America was unsuccessful from the beginning and gradually declined over time; causing the drinking age to remain at twenty-one infringes prohibition upon adults ages eighteen to twenty. Similar to America’s previous prohibition in the 1920s, prohibition for young adults between ages eighteen and twenty continues to cause rebellious actions in today’s society. At age eighteen, one is an adult and is given the responsibility to make decisions about marriage, war, elections, adoption, and many other things; however, one is not given the right to consume alcohol. Congress argues the dangers caused by drunken driving, excessive alcohol consumption, and alcohol-induced crime are reduced by regulating the drinking age to people above age twenty-one. However, regardless of the laws set in place, young adults, ages eighteen to twenty continue to drink underage. Many young adults drink more heavily because of the set laws that prevent them from having access to alcohol at any time. The drinking age is a major factor contributing to alcohol related fatalities across the United States. Lowering the drinking age has been discussed for years and doing so will cause a reduction of rebellious binge drinking, alcohol consumption to be monitored more efficiently, and a lower rate of alcohol related fatalities.

            In different areas of the world, the drinking age varies, proving it to be very controversial in many areas, including the United States. As mentioned below, in figure one, the drinking age is eighteen in most parts of the world. According to Miron and Tetelbaum, between 1933 and the late 1960s “32 states adopted an MLDA of 21, while 16 chose an MLDA between 18 and 20”, showing the difficulty that the United States faced in making a unanimous decision to change the drinking age (“The Dangers of the Drinking Age”). The decision was left for each state to regulate its own drinking age. Miron and Tetelbaum also mention, “Between 1970 and 1976, 30 states lowered their MLDA from 21 to 18”, emphasizing that if eighteen year olds are responsible enough to vote, they are responsible enough to drink (“The Dangers of the Drinking Age”). Slowly, some states began changing the minimum drinking age from eighteen to twenty one. According to Miron and Tetelbaum, by “1988, after passage of the FUDAA, all states adopted an MLDA21”, showing that all states in the United States eventually were forced to adopt the drinking age of twenty-one (“The Dangers of the Drinking Age”). Changing the legal drinking age from eighteen to twenty-one has caused dramatic changes in the way society views drinking, and it is increasingly becoming more dangerous with time.

Fig. 1. The drinking age varies across the globe; the United States is one of a few to have the drinking age set at age twenty-one (Google image).

Alcohol use is becoming more dangerous in today’s world, especially with the alarming increase of binge drinking. As seen below, in figure two, binge drinking is becoming a major problem amongst college students in the United States. Young adults tend to drink heavily when given the chance because it is an opportunity that is not always presented to them. Rather than simply drinking a small amount, young adults feel it is necessary to drink heavily because the next time they will have access to alcohol is unknown. According to an article in the The Daily Texan, “90 percent of the alcohol consumed by those under 21 in the United States is consumed in the form of binge drinking” (“Lower the Drinking Age”). This statement shows that lowering the drinking age is causing young adults, especially for those people who are under the age of twenty-one, to drink heavily in a short amount of time. An article from Students for Sensible Drug Policy states that, “The current minimum drinking age forces young people to experiment with alcohol in unsafe environments and leads to a higher level of binge drinking among youth” (“Lowering Drinking Age”). This quote shows how curiosity induces drinking and sets the youth up for danger in unsafe environments. According to an article from ProCon, “Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior” (Drinking Age”). This quote shows that it is more dangerous and more difficult to monitor alcohol consumption for young adults ages eighteen to twenty.

Fig. 2. Binge drinking has been an increasing problem for many college students (Google image).

            Reducing the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen would allow for more control and supervision of alcohol consumption, therefore reducing the overwhelming number of alcohol-related fatalities. An article from ProCon claims, “Higher traffic accident and fatality rates occur during the first few years of legal drinking regardless of age” (“Drinking Age”). These rates indicate that reducing the drinking age to eighteen would simply cause an increase in fatalities at age eighteen and reduce the number of fatalities at age twenty-one. However, if the drinking age is lowered to eighteen, young adults would drink in areas that can be supervised. Doing so would balance out the number of unsupervised deaths in regards to alcohol consumption with the number of fatalities due to heavy drinking in the first few years of legal drinking. Though there will still be many fatalities, the total number of fatalities would be lowered because of the higher rate of supervision. An article by The University News states, “Many underage drinkers will not seek medical attention, no matter how severe injuries may be, because they fear the legal consequences of their actions” (“Lower Drinking Age Could Mean Safer Consumption”).   In other words, by lowering the drinking age to eighteen, more supervision would be provided for young adults who drink and fewer fatalities would occur because people will not be afraid to report dangerous injuries that require medical attention. Lowering the drinking age to eighteen will allow for police, public security and college campus security personnel, as well as restaurant owners, and many other areas to supervise drinking, thus help minimize the number of deaths in the United States due to alcohol consumption.

            Some of the strongest supporters of the current drinking age in the United States argue that the drinking age should not be lowered because of the harm it causes on human development. An article by ProCon states, “Alcohol consumption can interfere with this development, potentially causing chronic problems such as greater vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking behavior, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide” (“Drinking Age”). There are many possible long term factors that can evolve from drinking alcohol at a young age. At age eighteen, people are not fully developed, which increases susceptibility to these risks. An article on ProCon also argues that, “MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities. 100 of the 102 analyses (98%) in a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents” (“Drinking Age”). Consequently, by raising the drinking age to twenty-one there will be less traffic accidents.  Keeping the drinking age at twenty-one is beneficial in many areas, though there are other dangers that accompany it.

            By prohibiting young adults, ages eighteen to twenty, from drinking alcohol, the problems related to drinking are simply growing more dangerous. Simply because people under age twenty-one are not fully developed does not mean they are not able to experience any of these risks after they reach age twenty-one. Though there may be less traffic accidents, it does not mean that by lowering the drinking age that there will be an increase in traffic accidents. People who drink and drive under age eighteen will continue to drink and drive regardless of the drinking age. Drinking and driving is a choice individuals make based on knowledge and consequences; people who take those risks will take the risk whether or not it is legal. However, many people choose not to drink and drive and do not link drinking and driving to the drinking age. Age is not the problem when it comes to drinking and driving, and it comes down to the individual and their understanding and knowledge of alcohol. Alcohol can be a life-threatening and dangerous drug when it is abused. Congress has the power to reduce the abuse of alcohol by young adults across the United States. Lowering the drinking age to eighteen will reduce the amount of binge drinking, provide a greater amount of supervision, and will reduce the number of alcohol related deaths in the United States.

Works Cited

"The Daily Texan | Serving the University of Texas at Austin community since 1900. “Lower the drinking age”. 31 Jan. 2013 <http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opinion/2012/11/13/lower-the-drinking-age>.

"The Dangers of the Drinking Age." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/15/lowering-legal-drinking-age-opinions-contributors-regulation.html>

"Drinking Age ProCon.org." Drinking Age ProCon.org. 07 Feb. 2013 <http://drinkingage.procon.org/>.

"Google." Google. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013. <http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/HEALTH/070314/AP_CollegesSubstanceAbuse.gif>

"Google." Google. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013. < http://www.unusualmaps.com/drinkingmap.gif>

"Lowering Drinking Age." Students for Sensible Drug Policy. 07 Feb. 2013 <http://ssdp.org/issues/lowering-drinking-age/>.

"Lower drinking age could mean safer consumption." The University News. 31 Jan. 2013 <http://unews.com/2012/09/17/lower-drinking-age-could-mean-safer-consumption/>.

 

 

 

Thesis Statement

Lowering the drinking age will change drinking from a rebellious act to an accepted social interaction.

Argument Topics

1.) Right To Bare Arms
2.) Legalization of Marijuana
3.) Animal Cruelty
4.) Assisted Suicide
5.) Drinking Age