Introduction
In her essay “Is a Tree Worth a life”, Sally Christensen illuminates the debate that has arisen regarding the value of environment in comparison to that of human life. Christensen makes a persuasive argument that the yew tree found in the tropical forests of Alaska, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana should be harvested for its medicinal use since its barks contain taxol – a chemical substance that cures ovarian cancer. She rationalizes her standpoint through three major points. First, she argues that people suffering from ovarian cancer will experience reduced chances of recuperating from the disease since yew tree is their last hope. Second, she postulates that the biggest value of yew tree is to treat cancer contrary to the notion held by environmentalists and forest service that it has greater value. Third, she argues that harvesting the tree cannot endanger the tree species. This is because proper management of the trees should lead to sustainable use of the species.
Is a Tree worth A life?
Christensen makes the main argument that the current debate is irrational. She wonders how the value of a tree is more important than that of human beings. Suffering from cancer herself, Christensen explains that she was the only one among other few patients that benefited from taxol yet the treatment is available in the tropical forests on America. It is unrealistic for the environmentalists, timber industries and national resource council to continue agitating for environmental custodianship for the yew tree yet 12,000 and 15,000 women will die of ovarian and breast cancers respectively within one year if the drug does not become accessible and available to them (Christensen 5). At the end of her argument, she asks whether yew tree protection is worth the price that human beings will pay.
Christensen argues out her second point by saying that the tree has a greater value than the aesthetic value it currently holds (2). She supports her claim by articulating that nothing is of equivalent value to human life. Despite initial research, the yew tree’s taxol has not had enough researches since 1950’s owing to the apparent resistance by environmentalists to logging of the yew trees (Christensen 3). This implies that even doctors who are entrusted with the protection of human life can rarely understand the full potential of yew tree in producing cancer-treating substances.
The final point that the author presents forth is that the authorities, environmentalists and national resources council of Oregon should focus on finding a strategy that can lead to sustainable use of the resource. The fact that the researchers are able to make genetic modifications of other plants to reduce their maturation period should serve as the rationale of the proposed harvesting of the tree. Besides, it is the only way that the world can boost the fight against cancer and show some value for human life (Christensen 12).
Conclusion
In essence, Christen advocates for continued harvesting of the yew tree despite the calls to illustrate environmental custodianship in her essay, “Is a Tree worth a Life?” Suffering from ovarian cancer, she sees no other hope except for taxol from the yew trees found in the tropical forest of Southern parts of America. To support her main argument, she says that the true value of yew tree is to treat cancer. Finally, she elucidates that sustainable management of the yew would be the most realistic decision to follow amidst the debate.
Works Cited
Christensen, Sally. “Is a Tree worth a Life”. Earth in the Balance, New York, McGraw Publishers, 2000. Print.