Loren Pechtel

Larry Niven, Gil the Arm.

Do *NOT* profit from prisoners!

winstonjen

Hmm. I think it's easy to take that view if you do not need new organs at present.

Daleth

Yes. It is also easy to take the view that my brother should not be forced to donate and that we shouldn't be allowed to kidnap people to make them donate. Everything's easier to scrutinize morally when you're not at stake. That doesn't mean if you're at stake your judgement is more moral. If it's wrong to force people to donate their organs and go through a potentially life threatening procedure, then it is wrong. It doesn't matter who the people are.

Bob Stewart

Loren Pechtel,

If the point here is that Larry Niven would disagree with my proposal-- so what!

If there is another/different point, please be more explicit!

Bob Stewart

Bad Kitty

Just a slight move to an adjacent topic: What about a PRISONER who NEEDS an organ transplant to live?

Interesting facts:

There is actually proposed legislation (Senate Bill 38) which would require that the Department of Motor Vehicles include a provision on its organ donor forms allowing donors to indicate whether they want to prohibit their donations from going to prisoners. My understanding is that action on this bill has been slowed until next year.

There was a case in 2002 of a 31-year-old prisoner who required a heart transplant and a court decision said that denial of a heart transplant would violate the constitutional protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." The heart transplant will cost taxpayers 1 million dollars (with continuing care). The prisoner was serving 14 years for robbery. Keep in mind, that there are more than 80,000 people on the waiting list for an organ transplant (in the US) and almost 6,000 of them will die this year before a transplant becomes available. About 4,000 of those waiting are waiting for a heart.

Should we be giving him a transplant? The United Network for Organ Sharing (which maintains the organ waiting list) has an ethics policy that makes prisoners (potentially even those on death row) equal with law-abiding citizens -- BUT, in the case of liver transplants, has a rule that those patients with liver disease due to alcohol and drug abuse can't be at the top of the transplant list.

Thus an alcoholic is not given the same consideration as a murderer.


Michelle

Daleth

Just need to point out that the prisoner isn't likely getting that particular heart above anybody else, since it's not a one-size-fits-all procedure. It's not quite like bumping some more deserving person off the list. That said, I don't know how I feel about this since I don't believe there's any mandate for the gov't to pay for or subsidize any form of transplant for regular citizens. Is a hospital required to perform a transplant if the patient can't prove they're able to pay? If it's a service that can be denied to others, I don't know why it can't be denied to prisoners. Or more exactly, if it's cruel to deny it to a prisoner then why isn't it cruel to deny it to anyone else? I know the legalistics behind it, but that doesn't help. It still comes up cruel towards the rest of us in my mind.

Actually it's giving a person who's likely to destroy the organ through their own abuse less consideration than someone who is not likely to destroy the organ through their own abuse. It makes perfect sense, except the death row thing, where you can say round about that their own abuse is what's leading to their death (and so the destruction of the transplanted organ).

brighid

Despite the fact that prisoners are criminals they still have the same basic human rights all others have. Also, considering the number of people who are wrongly convicted (especially those on death row) I have no confidence that taking an organ from one of these individuals would be justifiable based on an assumption of guilt.

I doubt many prisoners would make good donors given the lifestyles many have lead prior to imprisonment - drug, alcohol and tobacco use/abuse, potentially promiscuous and/or violent lifestyles, including the stress of imprisonment ... and so on and so forth.

Removal of an organ is an infinite "punishment" in the sense of a prison for a potentially finite crime. I don't think people should lose their organs because the committed or were convicted of a crime. Imagine the potential for miscarriage of justice ... a cop's sister is dying of renal failure and you are a perfect match ... you are incarcerated for a crime you didn't commit so they could take your kidney.

Donation should be voluntary in all cases of living human beings.

Brighid

Bad Kitty

Simply not true. While that heart certainly would not have been suitable for all 4,000 patients who were waiting, there were doubtless other possible recipients from within that pool. And you certainly could look at it like "bumping someone more deserving off the list" depending on what your definition of "more deserving" is.

Also, as you pointed out, there are people not even ON the transplant list due to an inability to pay, and their medical need could be even higher than the prisoner -- but by virtue of the fact that they aren't a criminal in prison they won't even be considered for the transplant.

I'm still not sure that a murderer or rapist or other violent offender is necessarily a more deserving (or safer) recipient than, say, a recovered alcoholic.

brighid

Although it might be unfair if a prisoner gets a transplanted organ then someone's mother or child, I think it would be very dangerous to start assigning value and/or preference to who actually gets an organ or not.

The system should be those in greatest need, regardless of political connections, or finances are given priority. The abuse of this type of system is foreseeable and horrible. I have less of a problem with the occassional prisoner receiving an organ transplant then I am of a child of a wealthy politicians parentel influence bumping them up in priority, not because of need but because of influence and finances.

Brighid

Bad Kitty

Brighid,

I agree with you in many respects, and it certainly is a complicated issue. I would point out that UNOS has already made a value judgement in regards to liver transplants (putting those who suffer from liver disease due to alcoholism at the bottom of the list for transplants). So the idea of basing transplants ONLY on need is already blown.

Also, as the inability to pay factors into whether you can even GET ON the transplant list, there will be many with high medical need who will not be treated at all -- thus a value judgement is made by default (those with enough money and/or in prison versus the poor).

I try to feel this way, too, that when it comes to this issue we are all equal, and "medical need" should be the key decision. But if I'm going to choose who gets "bumped up" can I really choose this guy over some man who dad just so happens to be a Senator:

From the same article:

Also, just FYI on the story about the 32-year-old robber who received a heart transplant in prison: he died 11 months later.

It is a conundrum to be sure.

Michelle