This article by Alexander Tabarrok was born as a reaction to the growing number of deaths due to organ shortages. According to the article, there is a huge shortage of organs and this has resulted in many deaths that could have been avoided if people had agreed to donate their organs to others in need. According to Tabbarok, 60 thousand people die every year due to organ shortage; there are only 10,000 people willing to donate their organs to others. It is therefore clear that as many as 50,000 die from lack of organs (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). As a result of this development, Tabarrok then suggests a solution to the organ shortage problem by proposing the moral solution. Organs should be donated on a give-and-take basis, whereby anyone who is willing to donate their organs will receive organs from others in case they need them for themselves. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Upon further examination, organ donation is an act of will in which those who are willing to donate their organs when they die do so without having to be coerced or influenced to do so. Organ donation itself raises many moral questions, since donating an organ means being already dead. The article provides a summary of the basis on which organ donation should be carried out, but the remedy seems to be a step towards turning organs into commodities in the market. In fact, the laws of many countries discourage the sale and acquisition of organs under the market forces of supply and demand (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The argument behind the legal position taken by many countries against organ trade is purely due to their cultural construct of the context. The give-and-take scenario suggested in this case will mean that organs will only be donated to those who need them provided they themselves are the donors. Signing the donation document constitutes an act of will on the part of the interested party. Signing an organ donation agreement will act as insurance for one to automatically become a recipient (Nadell, 2008, p.511). Initially, the recipient of the organs did not depend on whether they wanted to donate or not. The new proposal will deny organ transplants to those who need them and yet have not signed the donation form. The formal logic behind this article is that the author uses facts to appeal to the moral sense. The fact that every year a large number of people die from lack of organs due to another person's mistake in not signing the donation form reduces the moral issue. If people can sign donation forms and allow others to use their organs after their death, or simply allow their organs to be harvested after their death, they serve the moral right to life (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1 ). Indeed, the writer notes the fact that every year people die with all their organs intact. Even those who would have lived longer thanks to donation die because they don't have someone to donate their organs. the two death scenarios represent the basis of moral interrogation, in which one will question the need to die naturally with well-functioning organs and at the same time deny life to others by refusing to sign the donation form. It goes a long way It makes sense to save someone's life by signing a donation form yourself and this will go a long way in saving the life of another person who in principle is not aware of the donor or could be. Organ donors were initially encouraged to donate their organs and received an expensive farewell,..