Should A Convict Make Amends By Donating 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).

In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd.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

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

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

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).

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

Life is precious, and it is sickening when one is lost only because it was not given the chance to be saved. On average twenty people die everyday because they had not received an organ transplant, and among those twenty are prisoners, people who should have the exact same rights to organ transplants as the regular citizen. Some people assume that it is a waste of money to donate organs to prisoners who have murdered someone. However, contrary to what they believe, prisoners should be allowed to receive a transplant because withholding organs from prisoners is a violation of the eighth amendment, and it basically gives the prisoners a death sentence that they didn’t receive in court.

Should anyone be denied an opportunity to donate an organ because of their criminal past? A.J. Burgess is a 2 year old boy who was born without kidneys. His father, Anthony Dickerson, was a perfect match but he was rejected due to hospital protocol. Baby A.J. should get a kidney from his father because of his condition, there should be no delay, and there is an available donor.

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).

As technology continues to progress the feasibility of organ transplantation becomes a commonplace. It is very common for organs to be donated after one passes if it is the wishes of the deceased. As the supply of organs from the deceased is greatly outnumbered by the number of patients on waitlists living donors becomes an issue. Many times a relative or close friend is willing to give up an organ to help save a life. The question is: Is it ethical to accept a monetary payment in exchange for an organ to save a life?

The ethical issue for the majority of people in the U.S. does not seem to be whether donating organs should be allowed, but instead should someone be compensated for their donation. As described earlier, the U.S. has a major shortage of organs and an even greater shortage is found in some areas of the world. However, countries like Iran have found a way to eliminate their shortage completely. “Iran adopted a system of paying kidney donors in 1988 and within 11 years it became the only country in the world to clear its waiting list for transplants.” (Economist, 2011) Although this sounds promising, it is important to look at the effects on the organ donor. In a study done on Iranian donors who sold their kidneys, it was found that many donors were negatively affected emotionally and physically after donating and that given the chance most would never donate again nor would they advise anyone else to do so. (Zargooshi, 2001) Additionally, many claimed to be worse off financially after donating due to an inability to work. (Goyal, 2002) To some, this last set of findings would be enough to supersede the benefit of clearing the organ waiting lists.

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

Many people think that it is not fair for criminals to pay their decision by donating a kidney or an eye because criminals should have bigger consequences than just donating a kidney. People think this because a criminal could be willing to donate, but end up just committing another crime. Also, people are saying that criminals don’t make another mistake when they have served their time in jail because most criminals are in jail for a long time. Also, people are arguing that criminals can have infections, so it can make other people more sick if criminals donate.

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.