kritik af tekst

Hej alle. det ville være super rart hvis i gad læse teksten igennem og give mig en lille "anmeldelse" af den. Bare sådan hvordan den er grammatikmæssigt og hvorvitd jeg har besvaret spørgsmålene korrekt. (bemærk det er engelsk på b niveau) 

på forhånd tak. 

spørgsmålene: 

 1- give a brief account of the issue of organ donation as it is outlined in the texts.    

 2- compare the solutions to the problem of organ shortages which are presented in text 1 and 3.

 3- discuss whether the dutch tv hoax described in text four was justified.  

teksten: 

1. The texts are about organ donation. People are living longer and therefore, the amount of people who are waiting for an organ is getting longer and longer. To few people are donating their organs compared to how many people need a new organ. A reason for that is fear. Some people believe that patients who could have been cured for their disease, have not been cured well enough so the hospital could use their organs. There are different proposals on how to solve the problem in the texts. In text one they mean that the solution is a system where people are organ donators from birth. They of course get the opportunity to refuse donating organs. According to text three the solution is to legalize organ trading.
In text four, the solution is to raise peoples awareness of the issue organ donation shortage.

2. In text one, they are talking about using a system of presumed consent. That system implies that people - in stead of choosing to become an organ donator - are registered as organ donators when they are born. Is someone doesn’t want to be an organ donator of for example religious reason they can feel free to remove them selves as registered organ donators.
The system is also called an opt - out system. The author uses Spain as an example. In Spain they brought in the opt-out system and in that way more than doubled the rate of organ donators.

In text three, the author thinks that the solution of the problem is to legalize trading with organs. It would eliminate the trading with organs on the black market which often causes death or diseases such as HIV. In the black market, the surgeries are often not performed careful enough. The middlemen don’t make sure that the organ sellers have a good health or are carrying any diseases. If trading organs got legal, it would both give much better circumstances for the seller and receiver than on the black market.
The seller will get checked for diseases, and could perhaps get a health insurance as payment.

The solution in text one seems like the most constructive one. The solution in text three might enlarge the inequality between the people. Especially if the price of an organ is too expensive for the less rich people in the society. The solution made me wonder about some things: Will legalize trading with organs result that organ donation is being abolished or will those two things take place parallel? Will everybody afford to buy an organ if organ donation will be abolished? What If organ trading and organ donation will take place parallel? Will the quality of the organs that are traded then be of better quality than them you can get for free?
Even though the solution in text one seems most reasonable, is it important that the people will be well-informed that they are organ donators. They should be well-informed about the health - and safety risks there are about organ donation. It also has to be very easy to opt-out.

3. A Dutch TV network made a play about four kidney receivers who were competing about a new kidney. The donator was a woman who was about to die of cancer. It was first revealed that is was a play when the first participant went out.
My first impression of the Hoax was that it was frivolous and “immature”. It seems quite disrespectful to make a play about such a serious thing. Especially that the (fake) kidney donator is about to die of cancer is very going beyond.
The participants had to compete about the kidney which is quite bizarre and seems primitive.
All these things - if you look at it from above - send a quite clear message: The number of organ donators is to low and that has serious consequences for a lot of people.
A lot of people are waiting for new kidneys but because of the shortage of kidneys many have to wait very long for new kidneys. Someone may never get them.

BNN (the TV network) says that they did it to raise the awareness of the problem, and I think they did that quite well. Yes they could have done it in a less bizarre and more gentle way, but that might not have given the same result. The hoax got a lot of attention and trough that, so did the problem with organ donation shortage.
People often deny or repress the fact that something is not right. Simply because they can’t take in the responsibility of changing the problem. Or, they are just unaware of the problem because of ignorance. Therefore the people must get the message in a tough way before they really realise its importance. You can put it in to perspective with the issue global warming. People first began to realise its extent when it began to have clear consequences, such as natural catastrophes. 
So according to me the TV networks arguments for making such a hoax are quite justifying.