I am interested in this research question because the concept of what things are considered to be unethical and ethical is an interesting and fluctuating standard. I am fascinated in how people come to a conclusion about why something is ethical or unethical. This question directly affects me and my values. The question is directly asking the reader if it is immoral to be more willing donate organs if it meant receiving a sum of money after. This is also targeting my values by forcing me to think would I donate my organs for money or to solely save someone's life. My personal experience with the question of the ethic view on compensating organ donation has not been a direct one. I tore my ACL, a ligament in my knee, my freshman year of high school year playing softball. I had surgery that used a donor's ligament to replace my torn one.  Although this donation wasn't a medically life saving procedure, the donation allowed me to continue to play a sport that I loved and play softball in college. After my surgery I felt I had to do something in order to let the family of the deceased, that their loved one did something good even after they were gone. I am not saying that the money would make the family feel better about their loved one passing, I'm saying it could help support those families who experience loss. I am qualified to write about this because I have a background in being a receiver of someone who was an organ donor, I am an organ donor, and I have credible sources.

The credible sources that I have, include articles from Gregory E. Pence, Stephen G. Pence, Scott Henry, and Dr. Stuart Youngner. In the article written by Gregory E. Pence, he is arguing that compensating people for organ donation could alleviate the organ shortage that we are experiencing in the United States. Pence is agreeing with a renowned Utilitarian named John Stuart Mill, who suggests that the "government could implement a well-regulated system in which living donors receive payment for a kidney or a non vital organ". Pence makes a point about the morally rewarding aspect of saving lives when donation one's organ and suggests to modify or only reward certain organ donations. He acknowledges the failed attempts to compensate donors in the past and suggests improvements. Gregory E. Pence is a credible source because he cites many renowned people who have an expertise in the issue and the fact that his article was found in an article research section in the Thomas Cooper Library. Pence offers issues in multiple parts of the organ donation dispute. This article was written in 2003, yet the issue still hasn't been resolved or addressed.

 In the article written by Stephen G. Post, he argues how compensating people for organ donation is unethical. He says that "the buying and selling of human organs violates human dignity" and that "the body is not property". Post uses the example of the black market in India which involves the poor selling their organs for money because they can't make money any other way, which is argued to be unethical. Post also uses the example of the blood banks and how they reduced the availability of blood donations and predicts that the same outcome with occur if the U.S. compensates those who donate their organs. Stephen G. Post is a credible source because he cites many renowned people who have an expertise in the issue and the fact that his article was found in an article research section in the Thomas Cooper Library. Post uses many past experiences and current issue to support his view. This article was written in 2003, yet the issue still hasn't been resolved or addressed. 

My last source is an interview of Scott Hensley, the host of Shots and NPR's health blog, and Dr. Stuart Youngner, a professor of bioethics, psychiatry and cognitive science, are asked to give their opinions on compensating organ donors. Hensley provides information about a poll that was taken asking citizens if they would prefer compensation to organ donors. Dr. Youngner gives his expertise on the system of organ donation and provides evidence in why we should consider as a nation, to create a system to compensate donors. This source is credible because it involved people in the public spectrum, who have earned their credibility. Also, Dr. Stuart Youngner is a professor at Case Western Reserve University that specializes in topics relating to this issue. This research is arguable because people can debate that compensating donors will create competition and cause those in poverty to result to selling organs for a source of income. With topics that are on a higher scale of the spectrum, there is always an opposing side. 

Although these sources are of different perspectives on the topic, each contain similar views. Each source contains the agreement that the product of organ donation is saving lives and that is an extremely positive thing. They also all touch on the subject of past failures of using monetary incentives for the distribution of blood. The sources disagree on the answer of the question, is compensating organ donors ethical or unethical. These different perspectives allow me to conclude to my own decision because I am receiving every angle of the argument. 

