After reading through the New York Times, an editorial entitled "Psst! Sell Your Kidney" caught my attention. It was published on November 12, 2002. The author of the article was Nicholas Kristof, a well respected writer known for writing about controversial subjects. The article argues that exchanging money for organs can benefit everyone.
             The main claim is to persuade the reader that there should be some sort of financial incentive with organ donation. The article begins with an anecdote. Then it works its way through statistics and moral issues to give the reader a better understanding of the argument. While the whole concept of paying for organs sounds "morally bankrupt," as many as 17 people die each day waiting on the never-ending list. According to Kristof, the debate on this issue has caused quite a stir in the medical community, and by the time the problem is resolved it'll have killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War.
             Kristof's editorial targets the reader who does not hold a definitive viewpoint on the topic at hand. The main reason why the American public has not considered the issue is because it is unethical and borders on the role of playing G-d. This editorial sheds a new light on putting organs on the free market. This new light helped me see a whole new side of the patients as well as the donors' families. While the patient gets a new lease on life, the donor's family receives financial support. Perhaps having a little economic gain is not as unethical as once thought.
             The article did contain a substantial amount of pathos, logos, and ethos. It appealed to all senses while uncovering new information about the economic world of organ donation. The article begins with an appeal to pathos with the use of an anecdote. The anecdote is that of a 68-year-old retired school teacher who is waiting on the list for a new kidney, while being hooked up to a dialysis machi...