I strongly believe that healthcare is a basic human right; however, the reality is that health care is often based on privilege and/or driven by employer benefits. There are many factors to consider when discussing healthcare as a basic human right. All individuals, regardless of income, race, or status should be treated equally when it comes to safe, effective, and quality health care. Even though I believe healthcare should be a human right, we have to consider how this would be feasible among different populations and societies. According toMaruthappu, Ologunde, and Gunarajasingam (2012) “a fundamental difficulty with considering healthcare as a right is that this right, unlike many others, is dependent upon the resources of a society,
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.
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
A continuing problem exists in trying to close the gap between the supply and demand of procured organs in the United States. An increase in the amount of transplant operations performed has risen significantly over time. As a result, a new name is added to the national waiting list every 16 minutes (Duan, Gibbons, & Meltzer, 2000). It is estimated that about 100,000 individuals are on the national transplant waiting list at all times (Munson, 2012). Something needs to be done before these numbers get completely out of control. Despite the introduction of Gift of Life and many other educational efforts, the United
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”).
We have prisons all over the United States that are overpopulated and this can lead to many problems. While being incarcerated for a crime, all inmates have the right to proper health care. When a person who is in prison gets sick, they do not have the liberty to make an appointment with a doctor, go to the emergency room, or even run down to the local pharmacy to get some over the counter medications. Inmates are solely at the hands of medical
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.
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).
[In an effort to reduce crime rates over the last two decades, there was a push to increase arrests, and length of incarceration of criminal offenders. Due to the increase in numbers of offenders incarcerated and the length of their sentences the prison has an increasing population of elderly offenders. In light of this situation, the need to provide medical care for this population has become increasingly more expensive than anyone anticipated. Therefore, there has been a great deal of attention to what is known as compassionate release. In order to evaluate the arguments for and against this legislation we will look at the arguments on both sides, what values underlie each position, how medical release fits into the discussion, and alternatives to the problem.
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).
In order to state a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment for lack of proper medical care, a prisoner must meet a three-fold test. First, the actions or inactions of prison authorities must correspond to a "deliberate indifference" standard. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Secondly, that deliberate indifference must be directed "to [a] serious medical need [ ]". Id. In order to state an Eight Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the actions of the defendants or their failure to act amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Id. at 106. Additionally, there must be some personal involvement on the part of prison officials. West v. Atkins, 815 F.2d 993 (4th Cir. 1987), rev 'd. on other grounds, 487 U.S. 42, 106 S.Ct. 2250 (1988). “Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires proof that, objectively, the prisoner plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need and that, subjectively, the prison staff were aware of the need for medical attention but failed to either provide it or ensure the needed care was available.” Blackwell v. Webb, et al., Civil Action No. RDB-13-1947, at 10.
Another questionable organ recipient other than the criminal is an alcoholic. There is a moral dilemma over whether or not somebody who has intentionally caused his or her organ to fail should receive a new organ before somebody whose organ has failed through no fault of his own. According to the equal access view, one’s lifestyle choices are not factors when considering access to medical procedures. According to the maximum benefit view, however, a medical bias should be taken into consideration. Alcoholic cirrhosis is a disease in which the liver is severely scarred due to excessive alcohol consumption. If the goal of bioethics is to maximize life, then non-reformed alcoholics should not be allowed to register on the national organ distribution list. Since their alcoholic cirrhosis is still worsening,
Should a convict make amends by donating his or her kidney or eye? This is very debatable question that also comes with a lot of opinions. I have agree with both sides of this topic but I have interviewed a couple people and I have gotten different answers.
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 an ongoing dispute between China and international health organizations across the world, one recent article had stated that before a program like UNOS was issued in 2010, “at least 90% of the transplanted organs in China were procured from prisoners.” The revelation had shocked the world as China was then the only country in the world that harvested organs from its prisoners and there has been no change to policies since then. It violates the international health principles in medical ethics as the families of these prisoners were not informed of such happenings to their incarcerated family members. While there were pamphlets circulating about organ transplants happening anyway, it still violates ethics as it does not look at the Veil