Organ Transplant for Prison Inmates

[Ninja Turtles]

I decided to create this topic as a split from the Death Penalty That Helps thread. The question was:

Suppose a prisoner, who is serving a long sentence, develops kidney or liver failure. Should he be considered as an appropriate organ recipient?

Now for organ recipients, there is a list that goes by health priority, so medical reasons may knock a person to a lower rung on the list. For instance, a bulemic in need of a heart transplant will be much lower than others because it's a self-inflicted condition caused by psychological problems; giving them a new heart would be useless if they are still bulemic.

However, should factors other than health be factored in? Should a prison inmate be lower on the list than any other person just because they're in jail?

So the question is do you believe prison inmates should be organ recipients? Do you think their priority on an organ recipient list should be lower because they are incarcerated?

 

[Mashley]

I think that based on their health concerns, they should be on the lists just like other people. They are still humans and they still deserve to live as long as others. Just because they are in prison, doesn't mean that they shouldn't receive health benefits.

 

[jayem]

Re. prison health care in general: of course, a civilized society has an obligation to protect those it has incarcerated and to provide health care for them. The real shame is that we can't find a way to make health insurance available and affordable for everyone.

Re. the ethics of transplants for prisoners: my utopian answer is that potential transplant recipients should be ranked strictly on medical criteria. Even that involves a lot of subjective judgement. I don't have any hard data, but I suspect that purely medical reasons will put many prisoners lower on the list. The prison population has a high incidence of substance abuse and such illnesses as hepatitis B and C. Having other chronic medical problems does make one a somewhat less viable candidate for transplantation, vis a vis a patient without other such conditions. But offender status alone should not be a factor. We know that innocent people have been convicted of crimes. Can we in good conscience compound the disgrace of falsely imprisoning someone by then denying him medical care just because he is a prisoner? Hard as it may be to swallow, I think prisoners should be prioritized for transplants by the same factors we use for everyone else.

 

[Danhalen]

Why not just turn prison into an organ donor farm? "Need a kidney? Inmate 00875401 still has two left. Hopefully you don't need a liver, we've already taken half of his."

 

[Daughter of His]

Here is a twist and not my opinion. I've heard it said that we should use prisoners with death sentences AS organ donors and when they loose enough organs that they die, well they partially repaid society.

 

[Blackmarch]

I decided to create this topic as a split from the Death Penalty That Helps thread. The question was:
Now for organ recipients, there is a list that goes by health priority, so medical reasons may knock a person to a lower rung on the list. For instance, a bulemic in need of a heart transplant will be much lower than others because it's a self-inflicted condition caused by psychological problems; giving them a new heart would be useless if they are still bulemic.

However, should factors other than health be factored in? Should a prison inmate be lower on the list than any other person just because they're in jail?

So the question is do you believe prison inmates should be organ recipients? Do you think their priority on an organ recipient list should be lower because they are incarcerated?

One would rather have someone who was keeping the law rather than breaking it be first in line.

 

[Zaac]

Here is a twist and not my opinion. I've heard it said that we should use prisoners with death sentences AS organ donors and when they loose enough organs that they die, well they partially repaid society.

Another twist, should those who are on the death list be on the organ transplant recipient list as they await the conclusion of their many appeals?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

One would rather have someone who was keeping the law rather than breaking it be first in line.

So I take it you are against medical care for these individuals, or at least, less care.

 

[Blackmarch]

So I take it you are against medical care for these individuals, or at least, less care.

Not totally; however one believes that that those who have not broken the law should get their needs taken care of first, and then what is left may go to those who have broken it (which will likely end up as less care).

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Not totally; however one believes that that those who have not broken the law should get their needs taken care of first, and then what is left may go to those who have broken it (which will likely end up as less care).

Like I said, you're giving them less care.

Two people need a heart transplant, one is an inmate, the other outside. You're saying that even if this inmate is higher up on the donor list, you'll give it to the other person?

 

[Blackmarch]

Like I said, you're giving them less care.

Two people need a heart transplant, one is an inmate, the other outside. You're saying that even if this inmate is higher up on the donor list, you'll give it to the other person?

one is saying that the Other outside person should be higher up on the list in the first place. But if not yes; Why should inmates recieve greater care than law abiding citizens?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

one is saying that the Other outside person should be higher up on the list in the first place. But if not yes; Why should inmates recieve greater care than law abiding citizens?

Shouldn't organ transplants be based on medical need not who you are? I can understand if they were pegged lower based on medical circumstances, but why should other factor be included?

 

[Blackmarch]

Shouldn't organ transplants be based on medical need not who you are? I can understand if they were pegged lower based on medical circumstances, but why should other factor be included?

Um if 2 people need a kidney or whatever organ that is required, isn't the medical need the same? If the medical need is the same then the next factor is who deserves it more. Once those who need it just as much as the inmates are taken care of... then the inmates can recieve those organs. If an inmate needs something that isn't in short supply, then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Um if 2 people need a kidney or whatever organ that is required, isn't the medical need the same? If the medical need is the same then the next factor is who deserves it more. Once those who need it just as much as the inmates are taken care of... then the inmates can recieve those organs. If an inmate needs something that isn't in short supply, then it shouldn't be a problem.

There is a list based on urgency of need. Some people need immediate organ transplant as they will die quickly. There are others that need a transplant, but it's not as urgent.

So now you're placed on a list, whoever comes up first for the organ gets the organ. Priority is determined before not at the time the organ is available. The question is do you think an inmate should automatically be pegged lower so that they come after everyone outside of prison.

You seem to think that one life is not worthy of the same medical care. Here's another question, what if the person is in jail, should they be placed lower on the organ recipient list?

 

[Onesiphorus]

Shouldn't organ transplants be based on medical need not who you are? I can understand if they were pegged lower based on medical circumstances, but why should other factor be included?

If we base it soley on medical need, we run the risk of injustice. Take two patients who need kidney transplants. One just needs it due to failing kidneys (or if you want, throw in they were infected with hepatitis when receiving blood during a prior surgery), the other is a chronic drinker who refused to stop.

They both display the exact same medical need. You can only perform one transplant, by the time another organ becomes available they'll both be dead. They both sign-up on the waiting list on the same day. Which one gets the green light?

 

[Ninja Turtles]

If we base it soley on medical need, we run the risk of injustice. Take two patients who need kidney transplants. One just needs it due to failing kidneys (or if you want, throw in they were infected with hepatitis when receiving blood during a prior surgery), the other is a chronic drinker who refused to stop.

They both display the exact same medical need. You can only perform one transplant, by the time another organ becomes available they'll both be dead. They both sign-up on the waiting list on the same day. Which one gets the green light?

Chronic drinkers are placed lower on the list, that's a medical and/or psychological reason that will go against immediate transplant.

It's just like bulemics. A bulemic will not be placed at a higher priority than another person that suffers from some congenital disease.

My question has nothing to do with whether there is a medical reason why someone is lower on the list, that's already done, my question has to do with using non-medical data to prioritize.

 

[Blackmarch]

There is a list based on urgency of need. Some people need immediate organ transplant as they will die quickly. There are others that need a transplant, but it's not as urgent.

So now you're placed on a list, whoever comes up first for the organ gets the organ. Priority is determined before not at the time the organ is available. The question is do you think an inmate should automatically be pegged lower so that they come after everyone outside of prison.

You seem to think that one life is not worthy of the same medical care. Here's another question, what if the person is in jail, should they be placed lower on the organ recipient list?

Oh- Sure if the inmate has an immediate need priority, then he gets priority over those who can wait inmate or not, but not over those who also have an immediate need priority who are not inmates.

2nd part- if during the wait, a non inmate who has an immediate need gets added to the list, the inmate gets bumped down.



Though one was under the impression that usually there is such a shortage that there are problems taking care of those who aren't inmates with immediate needs.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Oh- Sure if the inmate has an immediate need priority, then he gets priority over those who can wait inmate or not, but not over those who also have an immediate need priority who are not inmates.

2nd part- if during the wait, a non inmate who has an immediate need gets added to the list, the inmate gets bumped down.

Though one was under the impression that usually there is such a shortage that there are problems taking care of those who aren't inmates with immediate needs.

No, I'm just talking about an organ that becomes readily available. Immediate need is another topic altogether, however, whoever is placed on the immediate need list first should get the organ first regardless of their actions.

 

[Blackmarch]

No, I'm just talking about an organ that becomes readily available. Immediate need is another topic altogether, however, whoever is placed on the immediate need list first should get the organ first regardless of their actions.

To sum it up: Those who are not inmates with an equal (or greater need), get to be the first recipients of it. If there is an addition to the list (non inmate) that has an equal need during that time, then that person will also go before the inmate of equal need.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

To sum it up: Those who are not inmates with an equal (or greater need), get to be the first recipients of it. If there is an addition to the list (non inmate) that has an equal need during that time, then that person will also go before the inmate of equal need.

Equal need means that they are placed on a regular organ recipient list, inmates shouldn't be placed lower because they are in jail or prison.