My research question is the legalization of financial compensation for living kidney donation in the United States. My future dream is to become a pharmacist who can save humans' lives. Therefore, I related the research question to the medical field issue, and I decided to research about how the legalization of compensation for kidney donation would affect the U.S. people. The research question affects my personal value positively because there is nothing more important than saving human's life even though some people would possibly say compensation for organ donation could ruin the moral value. I have never experienced donating or got donation of organs including kidney. However, I have indirect experience that I father donated his blood to my father's uncle because the uncle had motorcycle accident, but he could not do the surgery until my father donated his blood because of the lack of blood donation in the hospital. If my dad was not living near by the hospital and could not donate blood to his uncle immediately, his uncle would not be able to live. Hence, I experienced not only how the donation of organs is important to save people's lives but also the donation time is important. The research question makes me to be qualified to write about the legalization of compensation for living kidney donation because of my experience from my father, desire to save life, and my seriousness attitude toward the research question.

The author of the first source claims that it is not a good idea to legalize the financial compensation to people who donate their kidney. His main evidences support his claim because according to his evidence, the compensation does not guarantee the increase of kidney donation, and it damages religious beliefs. The major belief of Catholics could be threatened because Catholics believe human body is the present that was created by God. They argue that no one has the right to decide whether they are going to sell the body or not. If religious people choose to not donate their organs because of their morality belief, it leads to the possibility of decrease in the amount of organ donation. The author's argument is not highly credible because he relies more to his subjective opinion instead of relying more on statistical data or other researches. Furthermore, this subjective point of view could lead to the biased source because the author's conclusion is based off of theory of possibilities (Caplan). 

The author of the second sources claims that in the United States, the Government and an Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) should find the way to compensate to kidney donors by developing proper system. The author supports his claim by providing reasonable evidence of steps that OPO should provide to donors in order to practice the compensation for kidney donors. The opponents are at stake because they concern not only the legitimacy of compensation but also the aftercare of the kidney donors. They believe the donors' aftercare of entire life cannot be supported because they argue that OPO cannot provide exact effects to the donors that could happen to them in the future. The source is very credible the author uses informative numerical data for his evidences. Also, the author acknowledges and tries to understand the counterarguments. Even though the author gives objective evidences, it is still a little bit biased because his main focus in to convince reader, so he provides many frothy plans (Matas). 

The authors of the third source claim that it is necessary to support the living kidney donors financially. To support authors claim, they set up experiment to see how current living kidney donors would think about financial compensation for kidney donors in order to provide major evidence. The authors propose that without the compensation for kidney donors, the kidney donors would be at stake because the donors should face financial issue for the result of the aftercare. It is not acceptable scenario that the donors are stressed about spending own money on aftercare of their kidney donation. The source is very credible because the authors actually did the experiment to support their central claim that in favor of why financial compensation for kidney donation should be legalized. However, there could be a bias because this experiment's participants were limited amount, and they are people who already donated their kidneys before (Shaw). 

The research question is arguable because the financial compensation for the people who donate their living kidney is controversial issue that divides into agreement and disagreements. Opponents believe it contradicts the moral issue that body could not be sold because it is God's present (Caplan). However, some people agree with it because they claim that it does not make sense that kidney donors being stressed financially for the payment of aftercare of kidney donation (Shaw). These different point of views allowed me to understand that legalization of financial compensation is not simple law making problem. I might keep the research question, but I might need to revise it by adding the question what type of financial compensation does the U.S. Government could provide. 

