This letter, by the Ministry of Health, is to inform readers that they will be placed under the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) upon reaching 21 years old.
One of the strong points of this letter is that it employs the AIDA formula (textbook pg 83-84) rather well. The letter opens with a congratulatory paragraph, which captures and sustains the attention of the reader. HOTA is then introduced to the readers and readers are told of the help they can offer to patients, before details of opting-in or out are given to them. This sequence of paragraphing will create a positive impression of HOTA on the readers. All necessary details (Completeness) are also clearly provided should readers want to opt-in or out in paragraphs 5 and 6, with the consequences coherently presented in the respective paragraphs (Clarity). The letter ended by thanking the reader, showing courtesy to the reader (Courtesy).
However, there are several areas which can be improved. Firstly, the phrases, “the purpose of” and “those who are” in paragraph 3, can be omitted as they are redundant. Next, certain paragraphing needs amendments. The age-bracket is mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3. This appears repetitive. I suggest stating that the readers are in HOTA in paragraph 2 and mention about the age-bracket only in paragraph 3 where HOTA is explained. In addition, that the readers will be given higher priority when receiving transplants should they remain on HOTA should be stated in paragraph 3 to appeal readers to stay on. Besides these, the sentence highlighted in paragraph 5 lacks tact. Instead, the letter can simply reiterate the priority given to those on HOTA. The phrase “have your organs removed after death” in paragraph 6 conveys the chilling prospect of doctors cutting open bodies to extract the organs. I suggest changing the phrase to “donate your organs after death”.
I believe most young adults are oblivious to HOTA until they receive this letter. As such, MOH plays an integral role in conveying the information across to these group of people.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned by Jackson, the congratulatory paragraph is essential because readers of our age usually ignore letters distributed by MOH as they are not directly affected by such issues(organ transplant). Also, the numbering and concise paragraphs avoid the possibility of monotonous reading which will certainly bore readers.
On the whole, I admit that MOH has structured the letter well for its targeted audience.
Hi Jackson, I will say that this letter definitely adopt a You-attitude. It is very clear and concise. Also , I believe that this letter contains all the necessary information about HOTA which includes the consequences of rejecting the any donation.However I must agree with you that the author should change that sentence. When I was reading that sentence, I felt as though I was threatened to donate ny organs.
ReplyDeleteLike Rauf said, readers our age probably do not bother about organ transplant. I think the Government realised this and thus made HOTA an opt-out scheme rather than an opt-in scheme for the majority. Thus I feel this letter serves only as a notification, a "I have notified you" letter, rather than a real introduction to HOTA. I think it is a job well done by whoever draft this letter, save for the minor blemishes, like that last sentence Pin Xuan mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the phrase 'have your organs removed after death" is really scary. I would think twice for donation after reading this.
ReplyDeleteApart from that, i think this letter is clear and complete. Readers are able to understand the HOTA easily through the explanation. The courteous tone and the congratulations part would also leave a good impression to the readers.
Generally, it's a good letter but I thought the switch from the birthday congratulations to HOTA was too abrupt. Perhaps, they could have made more of the 'coming of age'and the chance to now make important decisions such as whether to opt for the HOTA scheme.
ReplyDeleteMOH, very properly does not put moral pressure on the reader to opt in and is straightforward about the advantages of doing so. They are 'ón the level' which invokes trust in the reader.
Mrs Richardson