The obvious solution to this paradox, according to Holcberg, is legalization and monetary recompense for donated organs. He rationalizes his solution by appealing to the reader's sense of logic by equating payment for organs "as a type of life insurance" and the fact that this would be "mutually advantageous" to both the family who "gets needed money" and the "transplant patient" who "gets a vital organ."
Holcberg then broadens his line of reasoning to organ donation while living, as well as after death. He supports his logic with reference to authoritative figures such as the Mayo Clinic, wherein they claim that the "the extraction of a section of liver" is "less than1 percent" risk to "the donor's life," and the New England Journal of Medicine, which states that this risk "is even smaller." By referring to authority, the reader is more likely to agree, or to at least take notice of what Holcberg has to say.
At this point in his article, Holcberg endeavors to attract both proponents and opponents of his appeal by referring to a number of contrary standpoints. For example, he mentions that "those who object to a free market in organs would deny" a father who "may decide that one of his kidneys is worth selling to pay for the best medical treatment available for his child the right to act on his own judgment." He further states, that although these same opponents claim that "poor people are incapable of making rational choices" the fact is that they "do have the capacity to reason, and should be free to exercise it." In taking this approach, Holcberg appeals to the idea of human rights and is more likely to gain the reader's attention and agreement. He retains this attention on human rights by stating that "if the law recognizes our right to give away an organ, it should also recognize our right to sell an organ."
While continuing his negation of opposing views, Holcberg dismisses their concern for the possibility of people committing "murder to sell organs," as scaremongering and uses evocative words such as "financial lure" and "difficult-to-execute criminal action" to suggest that organ trade would decrease the number of murders. Holcberg's use of language here, successfully leads the reader to question the irrationality of such opposing views.
Holcberg's final counterargument against opponents of organ trade donation is a rejection of their concern that organs would go to the wealthier rather than the more needy people. He asserts that people's lives will be damaged (a seller would not get "the best price for his organ" and a buyer would not be able to purchase "an organ to further his life.") by giving organs to the needy. He refers to "charity" for the needy and effectively gives himself the last word on the issue by stating that "a free market would enhance the ability" for the needy to obtain organs from such "charitable organizations," and thereby demonstrates how their views are either questionable or wrong.
Finally, after finishing his negations, he stimulates the reader's sense of self-preservation by asking whether, "If your life depended on getting an organ wouldn't you be willing to pay for one" and "If you could find a