Prison Organ Donation

The principle of beneficence is one major ethical principle relevant in allowing prisoners to participate in organ donation. By providing organs to those individuals in need, participating prisoners are promoting the principle of beneficence. In an effort to promote beneficence by donating organs, we are preventing harm, removing harm, and doing good (Bagatell, Kahn, & Owens, 2010). By giving prisoners the option to participate in organ donation all three of these characteristics are displayed. Ideally, the prisoner or potential donor prevents harm and removes harm to the suffering recipient by eliminating the diseased organ. As a result, the prisoner is doing a good deed by participating in the act of organ donation and giving back to society for their wrongful action. Munson best illustrates the importance of this by stating that, “we should help other people when we are able to do so” (Munson, 2012, p. 894). The principle of beneficence also tells us that we have the duty as individuals to act in ways that will benefit each other. It was estimated that in 2008 approximately one and a half million people spent time in

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”).

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 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.

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.

In today’s medical field there is a profuse amount of room for ethical questioning concerning any procedure performed by a medical professional. According to the book Law & Ethics for Medical Careers, by Karen Judson and Carlene Harrison, ethics is defined as the standards of behavior, developed as a result of one’s concept of right and wrong (Judson, & Harrison, 2010). With that in mind, organ transplants for inmates has become a subject in which many people are asking questions as to whether it is morally right or wrong.

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

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).

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

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

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

Our topic is on organ transplant. We will focus on the process and ethical dilemmas surrounding it. Our group chose this topic because we care and understand that this can happen to our love ones. We want to raise our concern about this worldwide issue, and where the black market for organs come into play. The stakeholders include the people (donors or receivers), doctors, government, businesses, and experts. We will be focusing on the culture and the ethical issues that related to organ transplant, conflict of interests, ethics in the design phases, debt/ financing, and regulation. Since our topic is quite detailed, we will start with what is the precise definition of “brain death” in a heart beating body that is kept

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 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