Inmates and Organ Transplants: An Ethical Dilemma Essay

It was only a matter of time before a businessman in Virginia saw a way to profit from the success of transplantation. In 1983 H. Barry Jacobs announced the opening of a new exchange through which competent adults could buy and sell organs. His failing was in his decision to use needy immigrants as the source of the organs (Pence 36). As a result Congress, passed the National Organ Transplant Act (Public Law 98-507) in 1984, which prohibited the sale of human organs and violators would be subjected to fines and imprisonment (“Donation Details”).

It would also be important to consider the rules and regulations regarding organ transplants for this particular situation. Although, these doctors were trying to do the right thing for one patient they also needed to realize that the death row patient was still a patient and deserved the same rights as any patient that enters the hospital.

This paper is going to focus on the importance of getting a better way for Medicare to handle the needs of transplant patients. The current situation isn’t a good one. The patients are the ones that suffer while the medical insurance companies and centers keep making more and more money. This is showing to me how much of the healthcare has turned to be about that. The transplant centers are needed but there is so much red tape that they have to go through to be approved by Medicare it makes it hard for them to open. What seems like should be an easy fix sure isn’t when you look into it.

In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd. He sent a brochure to 7,500 American hospitals offering to broker contracts between patients with end-stage-renal-disease and persons willing to sell one kidney. His enterprise never got off the ground, but Dr Jacobs did spark an ethical debate that resulted in hearings before a congressional committee headed by Albert Gore, Jr., then a representative from the state of Tennessee. The offensive proposal for kidney sales led to the National Organ Transplant Act to become law in

Within our prison system, an estimated 44% (forty-four percent) of state inmates and 39% (thirty-nine percent) of federal inmates have a medical issue that is beyond the common cough or cold (Maruschak, 2004). These issues

Faced with a loved one’s organ failure and in need of an organ donor to survive, are we concerned with the organs origin? As of July 2017, according to the Human Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), there are 117,000 people on the organ waiting list (over 82% of those require a kidney), and an average of 22 people die each day waiting for organs (HRSA, 2017). Comparatively, the amount of prisoners executed in the United States each year is relatively small, yet one organ donor can save as many as eight lives and a cadaver can be used numerous ways in research (HRSA, 2017). Additionally, prisoners can be considered as live organ donors, especially when volunteering a kidney. Allowing inmate organ donations seems simple, yet it is shrouded with moral, ethical, and possible legal concerns. Arguments favoring or opposing incarcerated donors include the prisoner’s health, vulnerabilities, retribution, deterrence, and any form of compensation by reducing sentencing or stays of execution. The ethical aspect of medical staffs and courts involved in inmate executions and the removal of organs leads to heated discussions. Remarkably, there are no federal laws concerning inmate organ donors, and only Utah enacted state laws on the issue. Subsequently, other than Utah, any prisoner’s request to take part in organ donation is decided by prison officials or the governor where the inmate is confined. As the need for organs continues to outpace

While much discussion has been had in respect to the legislation of the Affordable Care Act and how it would impact the citizens of the United States, not a lot of thought is given to the medical state of the inmates incarcerated in North America. According to the eighth amendment, cruel and unusual punishment should not be inflicted upon inmates (U.S. Const. amend.VIII). Not issuing the proper medication to a pain stricken cancer patient or prenatal vitamins to an expectant mother can be looked at as cruel and unusual punishment. This paper aims to determine if healthcare in the United States is unconstitutional in its delivery. Healthcare at both federal and state prisons along with detention centers will be examined for this study. I am

would still need a consent from their treating doctor and a record of inmate’s medical history. Inmates who aren’t being treated well in prison would be transferred to hospitals for proper treatment (Reed and Lyne, 2000).

Each day, men, women and children are put behind bars suffer from lack of access to medical health care. Chronic illnesses go untreated, emergencies are ignored, and patients with serious illnesses fail to receive needed care. A small failure to medical care can turn in to death of an inmate if left untreated. Prisoners are humans whether inmates or not, with normal health issues or diseases. Even a common cold is an example of an illness that needs treatment. A lot with what is wrong with the health care system today, in the United States deals with money. Within prisons, it is an entire different story. The mission of medical care is to diagnose, comfort and cure. These goals are not being achieved within the prison system. Care needs to be given to every inmate, even the most despised and violent one among them all.

In the article “Wanted, Dead or Alive? Kidney Transplants in Inmates Awaiting Execution”, Jacob M. Appel argues that, despite the criminal justice system’s view that death-row inmates deserve to die, they should be given the same opportunity to extend their life as anyone else. “The United States Supreme Court has held since 1976 that prison inmates are entitled to the same medical treatment as the free public” (645).

The need for organ donations creates another ethical dilemma for Emergency Room Physicians. “Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns” (Stein, 2010). The shortage of organs available for transplant has caused many patients die while waiting. A pilot project from the federal government “has begun promoting an alternative that involves surgeons taking organs, within minutes, from patients whose hearts have stopped beating but who have not been declared brain-dead” (Stein, 2010). “The Uniform Determination of Death Act

Available became controversial. While the question of the dialysis machine is still controversial, the health system was caught in another ethical dilemma regarding organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is closely linked to the issue of cleanliness because patients with kidney failure can get an organ transplant as an alternative to hemodialysis. The issue is complicated by the fact Medicare is financed by organ transplant, and there are those who believe that the distribution of rare transplant is not right. There are thousands of terminal patients whose lives can be saved by organ transplantation, but there are no formulas of work that can be used to determine which of the thousands of patients will be given priority. It is left to the discretion of medical officers to decide who is worth saving. The ability to keep someone alive by replacing one or more of their major organs is a splendid achievement of medicine of the 20th century.

Organ transplantation is a term that most people are familiar with. When a person develops the need for a new organ either due to an accident or disease, they receive a transplant, right? No, that 's not always right. When a person needs a new organ, they usually face a long term struggle that they may never see the end of, at least while they are alive. The demand for transplant organs is a challenging problem that many people are working to solve. Countries all over the world face the organ shortage epidemic, and they all have different laws regarding what can be done to solve it. However, no country has been able to create a successful plan without causing moral and ethical dilemmas.

Every day, 20 people die because they are unable to receive a vital organ transplant that they need to survive. Some of these people are on organ donation lists and some of them are not. The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among those who do not receive the organs they need. In the United States alone, nearly 116,000 people are on waiting lists for vital organ transplants. Another name is added to this list every 10 minutes. This paper will argue that organ donation should not be optional. Every person who dies, or enters an irreversible vegetative state with little or no brain function, should have his or her organs-more specifically, those among the organs that are suitable for donation-harvested. A single healthy donor who has died can save up to eight lives (American Transplant Foundation).

Innovative advances in the practice of medicine have increased the life span of the average American. This along with the growing population in the United States and has created a shortfall in the number of organs available for transplant today. The current system of allocation used to obtain organs for transplant faces difficulty because of two primary reasons according to Moon (2002). The two perceptions that stop potential organs donors are that the allocation criteria is unfair and favors certain members of society and/or that organs may be allocated to someone who has destroyed their organs by misuse (Moon, 2002). Many individuals decline to donate organs because anyone requiring an organ transplant is placed on a waiting list and it is possible that individuals who have destroyed their organs by their own actions or convicted criminals could receive donated organs before someone whose organs are failing through no fault of their own and positively contribute to society. When a celebrity or wealthy individual requires a transplant they are often viewed as "jumping" the waitlist but