Case Analysis - Karley Glosek

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

260

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DeanKoala36

Karley Glosek Module Three: Case Analysis For my project, I have chosen a case that has three parts: “ Medical Care for Prisoners,” “Medical Care for Prisoners, Take Two: Donor Heart Goes to a Criminal,” and “Medical Care for Prisoners, Take Three: Organ Transplant for Death Row Inmate” (Pierce 2014). Part one provides background on the types of medical care that inmates readily receive as well as how this medical care is funded. Further, it discusses the protection of prisoners’ rights of access to medical care under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Moreover, there is a discussion regarding the true quality of medical care within correctional institutions. Specifically, it is noted that while prisoners reserve the right to receive medical care that meets the standard of medical care set forth within society, numerous studies aimed at the health of prisoners have shown that it is very seldom that prisoners receive adequate medical care that is congruent to their needs. It is also made clear that the legal standard for adequate inmate medical care does not align with the standard set forth throughout traditional medical care. Lastly, it is noted that medical practitioners within correctional settings do not receive the funding needed to increase the quality of care from “adequate” to “exemplary.” In part two, two men in need of a heart transplant are more-or-less “competing” for the same compatible donor’s heart, due to the fact that the two men share the same blood type. The one man (Mike) was a law-abiding citizen who had been waiting for a transplant for 68 days. The other man (Bob), however, was a convicted felon who had committed two armed robberies. Mike had just recently undergone a life-preserving procedure with which he needed more time to recover from before receiving a heart transplant. On the other hand, Bob had fallen victim to a severe viral infection which left his heart very weak. Due to the fact that Mike needed more time

to recover from his previous procedure, Bob received the heart transplant first. This situation led to a lot of anger throughout our society. Most seemed to believe that regardless of the fact that Mike needed more time to heal, the heart should’ve been saved for him. The bulk of our society believed that, due to Bob’s status as a convicted felon, he did not deserve such a perfectly good resource. Further, the cost of Bob’s transplant, coming in at nearly one million dollars, led to even more anger and haste within our society. The bulk of our society felt that they, as taxpayers, should not be held responsible for funding the medical care of a convicted felon. In part three, a death row inmate (Horacio Alberto Reyes-Camarena) who had been convicted of murdering an 18-year-old girl by stabbing her to death, began to receive dialysis treatment for a failing kidney. Due to the fact that the treatment was fairly costly, (approx. $120,000/year) plus the fact that the treatment was tedious and time consuming, Horacio concluded that what he really wanted was a new kidney. In the case, it is mentioned that approximately sixty thousand American citizens are awaiting a kidney transplant, making kidney’s a scarce resource to come by. Further, it is noted in this case that due to budget cuts, some patients (those uninsured and/or poor) have been removed from wait lists for organ transplants. Therefore, some individuals throughout society felt that it was morally wrong to cover a convicted killers requested (rather than required) medical expenses while subsequently leaving impoverished members of society to lay on their death beds. Within all three parts of this case study, multiple ethical questions are raised. Not only does the ethical issue seem to be that of who is more “deserving” of certain resources, but also a matter of “right versus wrong” in terms of who should be liable for covering the cost of such medical treatment for prisoners, especially due to the fact that access to good health care is scarce even among working-class, law-abiding citizens. Should prisoners be allocated certain

medical treatments upon request, especially when the requested treatment is not required? Should criminals receive an equal standard of medical care to that of law-abiding citizens? Further, is it ethical for legal standards of sufficiency to be higher for traditional medical care versus medical care within correctional facilities? Is it ethical to consider the severity of the crime committed when determining the standard of medical care for prisoners? Should law- abiding citizens be prioritized over prisoners when it comes to allocation of organs for those in need of an organ transplant? Lastly, what ethical concerns would be raised if we were to consider societal perspectives when determining allocation of scarce resources? Due to the nature of the ethical issues at hand, I will be using the justice framework to analyze this case. Several principles of the justice framework apply to this case, including: “be fair and take action not to discriminate,” which is applicable to the ethical concern of allocation of resources as well as standards of medical care among different classes of people. If we were to prioritize law-abiding citizens over prisoners in either case, it could easily be viewed as an act of discrimination against prisoners. The second principle, “contribute to society and to human well- being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing” applies to the case as it heavily revolves around ethical concerns of contribution for the purpose of human well-being. For example, there are ethical concerns surrounding taxpayer responsibility to monetarily contribute to medical expenses for prisoners. Lastly, the third principle, “do no harm” applies to all of the ethical concerns within this case. For example, does the fact that taxpayers are held responsible for covering medical costs for prisoners cause harm to taxpayers in any way? Is prioritizing medical care for law-abiding citizens harmful to prisoners in any way? Further, all of these principles apply to the justice framework, as the framework is rooted in the idea of fairness and making sure that every individual and/or group is “getting their due” (Module 1 Guide).

Using the justice framework, I will be able to analyze the ethical issues in the case from a fairness standpoint, making sure that the rights of each individual are accounted for. For example, lets consider the concern of whether or not it would be ethical to consider the severity of the crime committed when determining the standard of medical care for prisoners. After gathering the various possible decisions to this specific concern, I will then begin using the justice framework by asking myself questions that pertain to the frameworks guiding principles, such as: which decision is the fairest for all involved? In order to ensure that the decision made is the most suitable, I will also consider each possible decision from multiple societal/social perspectives: as a law-abiding citizen, as a correctional staff member, and as a prisoner. The professional code of ethics that I have chosen to analyze this case is the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections code of ethics. In using this code of ethics, I will be able to analyze this case using the standards that are meant to be applied to this exact type of case; being that both individuals directly involved in the case being analyzed are inmates of a correctional institution. For example, the DOC code of ethics has a code against discrimination that states: “the responsibility of all corrections employees is to act in relation to all citizens of the Commonwealth without regard to age, race, color, ancestry, creed, sex, and marital status, national origin, non-job-related handicap, or political beliefs” (Wetzel, n.d.). This code directly relates to several of the ethical concerns raised in the case. Specifically, the decisions made towards several of these concerns could potentially give rise to a supposed act of discrimination towards one group or another. Therefore, this code of ethics will help me to critically analyze the case more directly from a correctional ethics standpoint.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help