Organ Transplants Is A Violation Of The Eighth Amendment

Not only is the dilemma of inmates receiving organ transplants affecting physicians, but it affects all citizens equally, as well. It costs taxpayers ten and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to provide one prisoner with a transplant operation (“Organ transplants for,” 2011). “Efforts to ensure prisoner rights have compromised the lives of law-abiding taxpayers who are the state’s main source of income when it comes to paying for inmates’ medical bills” (Robinson).

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.

One of the areas that is currently affecting the United States is the ethical issue of organ transplant allocation. Since the first single lung transplant in 1983 and then the first double lung transplant in 1986 there have been thousands of people who have lived because of the surgery. One must examine, evaluate, and apply the four ethical principles to Organ transplant allocation to look at the ethical issues involved. Once must look at the fact that not every patient who would benefit from a transplant will receive one in time

After conducting extensive research I have concluded that for several reasons, congress should repeal the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. This act outlaws the selling of human organs with a punishment of paying fifty thousand dollars, or five years in prison, or both. Repealing this act would promote more people to be donors, and less money being spent on medicines, and hospital care. Hand in hand with more lives being saved. Although there are certain doubts, and ways people could manipulate the system; the law should be repealed, and new laws put into place to regulate it.

The demand for organ donors far exceeds the supply of available organs. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) … there are more than 77,000 people in the U.S. who are waiting to receive an organ (Organ Selling 1). The article goes on to say that the majority of those on the national organ transplant waiting list are in need of kidneys, an overwhelming 50,000 people. Although financial gain in the U.S and in most countries is illegal, by legalizing and structuring a scale for organ donor monetary payment, the shortage of available donors could be reduced. Legalizing this controversial issue will help with the projected forecast for a decrease in the number of people on the waiting list, the ethical concerns around benefitting from organ donation, and to include compensation for the organ donor.

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

If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital won’t work as hard to save my life: When you go to hospitals for treatment, doctors focus on saving your life, not someone else’s, and the doctor in charge of your care has nothing to do with transplantation.

Every day some dies after waiting years on a transplant list. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 says that in the United States, the sale of organs is illegal. Some believe this act may be preventing thousands of people from getting the organs that will save their lives. The truth is every day someone dies and their organs could be used to help others and everyday a life of one and the livelihood of another could be saved. The reasons for allowing the sale of organs is very simple to understand. It can help others financially, save money on medical expenses and most importantly, save lives. Critiques believe this would be a mistake causing spur of the moment decisions, and illegal obtain these organs for sale. With the use of regulation, these doubts can be laid to rest. Before the problem can be solved, the problem has to be identified.

Should a convict be able to donate an organ to make amends for his/her crimes? My opinion is yes and no. I interviewed my mom (as the teacher), my dad (as the parent), and 3 of my friends (Ainsley Alford, Mackela, and Olivia Aagesen) My mom's opinion is that it might be okay but it also might not be. She said that, if the person broke into Walmart's then yes he should be able to donate an organ and then be set free, but if he murdered someone/some people he should not have that chance. My dad said that is depends on what the articles leading up to the crime. I interviewed my friends and all three of them said that yes and no, it depends of the crime.

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).

In February 2003, 17-year-old Jesica Santillan received a heart-lung transplant at Duke University Hospital that went badly awry because, by mistake, doctors used donor organs from a patient with a different blood type. The botched operation and subsequent unsuccessful retransplant opened a discussion in the media, in internet chat rooms, and in ethicists' circles regarding how we, in the United States, allocate the scarce commodity of organs for transplant. How do we go about allocating a future for people who will die without a transplant? How do we go about denying it? When so many are waiting for their shot at a life worth living, is it fair to grant multiple organs or multiple

In the United States, there are currently 116,608 people in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, and 75,684 people that are currently active waiting list candidates (HRSA, 2017). Between January and September 2017, there have only been 12,211 organ donors (HRSA, 2017) which is far less that the current demand for lifesaving organs. The shortage of donors could lead to an individual looking for outside sources such as the black market to find their lifesaving organ. Offering incentives to persons who chose to donate their organs or those of a deceased loved one is important because it could stop the illegal selling of organs, save the life of someone in need of an organ transplant and benefit both the donor and recipient.

The OPTN says that just because someone is in prison doesn’t mean they should not be considered for an organ transplant, the “screening for all potential recipients should be done at the candidacy stage and once listed, all candidates should be eligible for equitable allocation of organs” (648). On the basis of social worth, physicians shouldn’t discriminate by using social value as criteria for medical decisions. Sade says that psychosocial factors may be used as selection criteria, however, because they might shed light on whether or not adequate social support systems exist for the transplant recipient. “The prison sentence is payment for the crime; the prisoner owes nothing more to society, certainly not his or her life” (647). The transplant center brings up the issue of money. When a non-prisoner has a transplant operation, they fund the surgery with the help of insurance and public health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Prisoners have neither private nor public insurance aside from what the prison system has in their budget, so this begs the question, “should the prison pay for a heart transplant for a convicted criminal?” The answer is no. Most prison systems can only afford to provide general health care, but not the large amount of funds needed for a heart transplant. Sade says the bill for aftercare of a prisoner’s heart transplant done in California in

In spite of this, felon’s organ transplantation is an issue consisting of interconnected parts and controversial, other than the issue of the felons or prisoners donation of organs.

Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from