In recent months, the debate over whether or not to allow a market in human organs has intensified. In the midst of what some would describe as a crisis in organ supply, the US government and the American Medical Association have both announced that they are reconsidering their ban on the sale of organs. Commentators on both sides of the issue argue adamantly over what, if anything, should be done. Most see this question as the ultimate test of medical ethics, as well as a harbinger of the problems that will face all of us as progress gives us more options for extending lives, and resource scarcity becomes more pronounced. Attached you will find two short essays--each from a writer supporting one side of the debate. These are meant as an introduction, but can be used as sources for the assignment as well. In an 800-1,000 word essay, analyze the values that underlie the two positions in this debate. What beliefs have led to the decisions that human organs should or should not be sold? In the opinion of the authors you consult, what are the effects of each system for individuals? For society at large? This is NOT an essay that tries to make a convincing argument for one position or the other; rather, it is about the language, assumptions, implications, and rhetoric of the controversy. This is a research essay, and you must use at least 4 sources (only one of which can be a website. Articles from online databases, online newspapers/journals, and professional sites [like the AMA, for instance], etc. are fine, though.) Due Thursday, April 11th: Two things: 1. An annotated works cited of 2 sources, following the format on the handout I gave you. 2. Two paragraphs, 100-150 words each, one summarizing the argument of Gawande and one summarizing the argument of Epstein. Due Tuesday April 16th: THREE copies of your essay and annotated works cited. ***If you have questions about this assignment, email Ms. Bryant, wkb23. Be sure to CC me as well.