Kort rettelse af stil

Nogen der gider hurtigt at rette min engelsk til?

Det behøver ikke, at være ekstremt rettet, så længe at "the basic" er i orden :)

Delprøve 2 Organ donation

1. In June there were 97,000 American people who awaited lifesaving transplants, and the waiting lists grew bigger and bigger each day. There was more need for organs, than there were donations. All the texts come with each of their solutions, to turn the donations rates.

2. In the two texts we are presented for 3 different solutions to the increasing problem of organ donations. In text 1 they focus on a switch from a system called opt-in to opt-out. Here all by the birth in the sign in the donor register, unless they don’t want to be a donor they have to sign themselves out. His proposal was met with mixed feelings, some good and some bad. Just 3 years ago a similar proposal was voted down.
When the 27-years-old artist Jo Keeling suffered a brain hemorrhage, it was up to her mother Maggie Keeling to decide, whether they wanted or not, to donate Jo’s organs. The family agreed on Maggie’s proposal, and donated her body parts. The organ receivers were very grateful and they sent some thank you letters to the family. Jo’s family was just happy, that they by their chose have saved some other person’s life. Mrs. Keeling had a good experience with organ donation, but she still does not think the presumed consent is the best option. Opt-out is in her eyes a plan b, instead should we try harder to get people to register, before using the opt-out solution.
In text 3 we get presented for a legal marked for organs. Trading organs is banned in most countries, but not in Iran. In Iran they have manage to legalize the sale of kidneys. As a result of the legalization, the country has no waiting lists. But is the idea of people selling their organs ethical?
In my opinion, I would agree with Mrs. Keeling, who believed that we should give this problem more attention, and make it more attractive to people to register. There’s no need forcing people to be a donor, but make them think a little more about it. What if they got sick, and needed a new kidney? How would they have it in that position like many is? After that, my choice would be the opt-out route, which to me seem more morally correct and the safest alternative from the texts.

3. The Dutch TV broadcaster BNN started the debate of organ donations. In a live TV game show, BNN presented a game show, were 3 kidney patients whose job were to convince an organ donor to choose them to donate her kidneys. BNN revealed at the end of the show, that it was all a hoax.
The channel BNN succeeds in their task, to get more focuses on the need for organ donators.
I think is a good way to get people to talk about it and get some focus on the subject. A lot of people would sign up for organ donation, but they’ll never pull themselves together. The TV show showed how desperate people are, and that could make people think about organ donation. I think the phrase: “Any publicity is good publicity” fit well in here. It is better that something receives bad publicity than no publicity at all. So the attention that BNN created is good. It is often when people get offended they pay most attention. If the show wasn’t a hoax I would definitely see it in a different perspective, then it would have been kind of sick putting suffering people throw such things just because of ratings.