Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?

The debate between Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Reynolds would concentrate on the societal impacts of a free market, which could largely depends on the ethics to permit or disallow the buying and selling of various commodities including the delicate and confidential ones. Such arguments attempted to discourse the roles of the free market to conduct business activities (Puig, 2014, p. 387). On the other hand, Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Reynolds differed over the primary functions of the free market as a means to express ethical decisions. Both individuals, Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Reynolds, understood the main functions of market arbitration in the free market, but they failed to recognize the public influences of medical practices in a free market. Even though market arbitration endeavored to resolve issues of the free market activities, Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Reynolds tried to explore ethics and ethical decisions in the free market. Dr. Nguyen’s apprehensions would interconnect to the long-term effects of trusting on market arbitration. His concept of a free market emphasized that it was not a proper instrument to advance an agenda. He thought that people should interfere with one system to address ethics issues in a distinct, unconnected structure but that they miscarried to realize the vulnerability of the free market. According to Dr. Reynolds, the demand for cedar wood became the culprit of the destruction of the cedar trees even if the market supports the business transactions. In one research, it cited that the market of buying and selling of contentious merchandises such as sperm, egg, and the like would require regulations to restrict and to allow the market to move (Daniels & Heidt-Forsythe, 2012, p. 719). Of course, Dr. Reynolds properly defined the answers of the ethical problems to present to the public, not slide them into the public notice via the free market. Since the market itself is biased-free, people who engage in the business may have a consensus to impose constraints to achieve the desired principles (Almeling, 2007, p. 319). Thus, they needed to acknowledge the free market as a means to express ethical decisions and to explore the chances to discuss moral issues. Indeed, market arbitration in the free market remained essentially unexploited in terms of determining a principled space. The free market continued to be neutral and became a perfect picture to cherry-pick a good decision. Restrictive rules to produce debated goods have been essential, and the government and the concerned groups should stand well-founded to facilitate the guidelines in the free market. The free market helped generate real demands of products and set industries in motion; however, it should also set its limits to consider moral grounds as individual and organizational responsibilities towards ethical standards.   References Almeling, R. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 319-340. Daniels, C. R., & Heidt-Forsythe, E. (2012). Gendered eugenics and the problematic of free market reproductive technologies: Sperm and egg donation in the United States. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 37(3), 719-747. Puig, S. (2014). Social capital in the arbitration market. European Journal of International Law, 25(2), 387-424.