Critique of Sally Satel's “Death Waiting List” After being diagnosed with chronic kidney failure in 2004, psychiatrist Sally Satel was left with the uncertainty of transplant lists for a whole year, until he finally got lucky and received his long-awaited kidney. “Death's Waiting List,” published May 5, 2006, was the consequence of Satel's terrible experience. The article presents a crucial argument against current transplant list systems and offers alternative solutions that may or may not be practical and reasonable. Satel's text addresses this topic at a time when the availability of organs has never been more in demand, due to the continuous deterioration of public health. With new epidemics emerging every day, endless carcinogens approach our daily lives, leaving no organ intact, and as a result many suffer, and many others are desperate for a new organ, for a renewed possibility. Overall, the “Death Waiting List” follows a slightly biased line of reasoning, with several underlying presumptions that are not necessarily well documented. In his article, Satel criticizes the current methods that regulate organ sharing in the United States and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, either through providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European system of “presumed consent” for organ donation could remedy this organ shortage if implicated in the United States. Early in his argument, Satel argues that current transplant list systems are ineffective and are causing a shortage of organ availability, thus allowing countless patients to suffer. At first, he makes an invalid... middle of paper... rating the organs like vultures, demonstrating a great lack of respect towards both the deceased and their families. Furthermore, the author fails to remain neutral when discussing the issue, and goes overboard in placing the blame solely on the government. Arguably, “Death's Waiting List” discusses a crucial topic of our times, no matter how sincere Satel is in her arguments, it provides alternatives that deserve further analysis and consideration, after all, the incentives are not that scary to get the someone's consent. Further research and public hubs should be established to take a more in-depth look at such alternative systems, to understand whether Satel's suggestions could potentially remedy this organ shortage. While his argument may not be ideal, it sheds light on this growing problem and gives us a starting point to look for solutions.