Prison Organ Donation

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”).

Mandatory Organ Donation In the United States today, people lose their lives to many different causes. Though this is tragic, there are also a large group of people who could benefit from these deaths; and those people are people in need of an organ transplant. Although a sudden or tragic death can be heart breaking to a family, they could feel some relief by using their loved ones' organs to save the lives of many others. This act of kindness, though, can only be done with consent of both the victim and the family; making the donation of organs happen much less than is needed. The need for organs is growing every day, but the amount provided just is not keeping up. Because of the great lack of organ donors, the constant need for organs,

In most cases, executed or living prisoners would be eligible organ donors. With the high demand for organ transplantations, by allowing prisoners to participate it would produce more happiness than unhappiness. In fact, it seems more appealing to allow prisoners to participate in organ donation than the alternative of doing nothing (Munson, 2012).

Organ donation has been a controversial topic for decades. This uncertainty stems from one major question; what is death? While medical professions can define death strictly in terms of physiological cessation, individuals may have different beliefs based on their cultural, spiritual, and religious beliefs. These

With the state funding health care for prisoners and the Supreme Court’s ruling, this does however cause a problem for physicians who are ethically bound to help all patients. “[It also causes frustration among physicians because budget cuts are knocking arguably more deserving donor recipients off the transplant list, and allowing prisoners like Reyes-Camarena to receive priority]” (Robinson).

As the prison population in America grows in numbers and increases in age, questions and debates about the allocation of medical resources to prisoners will grow in urgency. One issue which arises every so often is whether convicted felons, especially those who are awaiting capital punishment, should receive the same level of medical care as others in society - including scarce donor organs for the purpose of transplantation. As is often the case, the debate over whether a death row inmate should receive an organ transplant is not a single controversy, but rather several rolled into one. Being able to address the larger question requires disentangling the smaller questions and examining each in turn. What role, if any, should a person 's

Inmate Christian Longo was convicted of the crimes he committed and he was on death row, he wrote an appeal to have his organs donated when he was executed, however he was denied. In an editorial by Longo put in the New York Times he said, “Eight years ago I was sentenced to death for the murders of my wife and three children. I am guilty. I once thought that I could fool others into believing this was not true. Failing that, I tried to convince myself that it didn’t matter. But, gradually, the enormity of what I did speeded in: that was followed by remorse and then a wish to make amends.” “I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. And yet, the prison authority’s response to my latest appeal to donate was this: ‘The interests of the public and condemned inmates are best served by denying the petition’.” Longo went on to tell “that there are more inmates on death row that wanted to do the same and that there was no valid reason as to why they could not, but they were all denied the opportunity (Christian Longo).” There is no reason why inmates shouldn’t be allowed to donate their organs if that is what they want to do, as stated earlier, inmates who die in prison should have to donate their organs if they are healthy organs and are positive matches to anyone on the donor transplant list. Longo and many others want to give their organs to save lives, why are people telling them no, just because they are

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).

Organ Donation Everyday, twenty-two people die waiting for an organ transplant. Patients on the donor list are in need of an organ and are depending on it for survival. Some patients are on the list for weeks, months, even years with sno match. Comparatively, 6,316 people die every hour with viable organs that can be used. Doctors are not legally allowed to use these organs unless given consent by only the patient before death. If all U.S. citizens donated their organs, transplantations could occur and save thousands of lives each year. Organ donation should be required in the United States because of the significant number of lives that could be saved everyday.

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

With the evolution of time variety of advanced and useful medical procedures to save lives have been discovered, one of which being organ donations. Now days patients suffering from serious and life threatening conditions have the option of getting their organs replaced; a second chance at life. It should be mandatory that all people, once they have died be organ and tissue donors because after death they no longer need or use their organs. Secondly, by simply donating you could save numerous lives and lastly, there are critical organ shortages within Canada which could be resolved if there were more donors available

This is an ongoing debate over whether the United States should adopt a presumed-consent organ donor system. The first organ donation was a skin graft. Skin is your only external organ. The organ transplant happened in 1869, and since then, the science and safety has gone up. The first internal

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).

The Allocation of Scarce Resources 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

Organ Transplantation and Ethical Considerations 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