Poverty, Desperation, and the Price of Flesh
Across the world, thousands of people die every year waiting for an organ transplant. At the same time, millions of people live in extreme poverty, desperate for cash. In almost every country, paying a living donor for their kidney is strictly illegal. But does prohibition actually protect the vulnerable, or does it simply force the trade into the dangerous shadows of the black market?
1. With over 100,000 people on the national , patients are getting desperate.
2. The illegal found a match, charging the buyer $150,000 but only paying the donor $3,000.
3. Many economists argue that governments should legalise and strictly the trade to make it safe.
4. Criminal syndicates often target refugees and the deeply poor.
5. In shady, back-alley clinics, corrupt doctors kidneys using unsanitary equipment.
6. Opponents argue that if you are starving, you cannot give genuine, uncoerced to sell your body parts.
When discussing desperation and the extreme lengths people will go to survive, these phrases are common.
Read this ethical dilemma regarding the reality of the illegal organ trade.
Arthur is a wealthy businessman in London. His kidneys are failing, and he has been told he will die before he reaches the top of the official waitlist. Desperate, Arthur pays an illegal broker $200,000 to find him an organ.
Halfway across the world, Mateo is living in extreme poverty. He cannot feed his children and is facing eviction. He voluntarily contacts the same broker and gives his consent to sell one of his kidneys for $5,000. He flies to a secret clinic, the doctors harvest the organ, and Arthur gets his transplant.
Arthur survives, and Mateo uses the money to pay off his debts. Advocates for legalisation argue that this transaction saved both men's lives. They argue that provided that the surgery is safe, people own their bodies and should be allowed to sell them. Critics, however, argue that this is pure exploitation. They claim that the broker preyed on Mateo's desperation, and that unless we maintain a strict ban, the rich will continually cannibalize the global poor.
When debating laws and strict regulations, we often use alternatives to "if." Unless means "if not." Provided that (or "as long as") means "only if."
| Conjunction | Meaning / Usage | Debate Example |
|---|---|---|
| Unless | "Except if" / "If we don't". Used to show a negative condition that will result in a consequence. | "Unless we legalise the trade, people will keep dying in secret." (If we don't legalise it, people will die.) |
| Provided that (As long as) |
"Only if". Used to set a strict, mandatory condition for something to be acceptable. | "They should be allowed to sell it, provided that the surgery is safe." (Only if the surgery is safe.) |
Pro Tip: Never use "will" immediately after 'Unless' or 'Provided that'. Use the Present Simple. (e.g., "Unless he pays..." NOT "Unless he will pay...").
1. ____________ the donor is fully aware of the medical risks, the government should not interfere with the sale.
2. ____________ we increase the number of legal, voluntary donors, the black market will continue to thrive.
Type the missing words to complete these heavy idioms.
1. The patient doesn't care about the law; finding a kidney is a matter of life and .
2. The illegal brokers aren't helping people; they are just preying the desperate.
Don't just nod your head in conversations. Master the advanced phrasing to eloquently defend your opinions in high-level debates.
Come and join me for a bespoke English lesson at nativeuk.com designed specifically to build your conversational confidence.
Book a Private SessionWant to speak clearly about politics, tech, and the modern world? We've got the secret vocabulary you won't find in textbooks.
Check out our Good to Know section and dive into our Blog. You’ll be leading conversations like a native speaker in no time.
Explore Free Resources