A new source of Organs
Should inmates get time off their sentence if they donate an organ? This question is being raised in South Carolina.
There is currently a proposed bill from South Carolina State Sen. Ralph Anderson that would grant prison inmates time off of their sentences if they donate organs or bone marrow.
There have been many comments related to the proposal including the following:
“Repugnant,” “grossly unethical” and “taking lessons from the Chinese” are some of the things being said about the proposed legislation.
The bill arises from a federal law that allows up to 180 days “credit” if an inmate saves a prison guard’s life. Therefore, extrapolating this law further, Anderson figured they should get time off if they help one of the 573 state residents waiting for a kidney.
The desperation for organs is high but this avenue would certainly raise questions and potentially affect the donor pool as incidents of hepatitis and other problems are higher among prisoners.
People who donate outside of prison don’t get time off and typically expect nothing in return. They do it out of love most of the time.
There is currently a proposed bill from South Carolina State Sen. Ralph Anderson that would grant prison inmates time off of their sentences if they donate organs or bone marrow.
There have been many comments related to the proposal including the following:
“Repugnant,” “grossly unethical” and “taking lessons from the Chinese” are some of the things being said about the proposed legislation.
The bill arises from a federal law that allows up to 180 days “credit” if an inmate saves a prison guard’s life. Therefore, extrapolating this law further, Anderson figured they should get time off if they help one of the 573 state residents waiting for a kidney.
The desperation for organs is high but this avenue would certainly raise questions and potentially affect the donor pool as incidents of hepatitis and other problems are higher among prisoners.
People who donate outside of prison don’t get time off and typically expect nothing in return. They do it out of love most of the time.
Labels: inmates, legislation, organ donation
posted by Anonymous at 6:00 AM
8 Comments:
It doesn’t sound like anyone involved with this idea knows what’s involved with organ and tissue transplant…organs and tissues can’t be harvested from just any ol’ dead person.
There is a difference between organ donation and tissue donation. “Tissues” include blood products, skin, bones, tendons, corneas, heart valves, and in some states, veins. These tissues can be harvested up to 24 hours after asystole. Organs can only be harvested from someone who is brain-dead, still clinically living, but on life-support.
Typically, tissue banks won’t take tissues from people who engage in high-risk behaviors because these tissues are transplanted to individuals for the betterment of their quality of life, but not to save their lives. Transplanting tissues that could possibly carry infection (even if serologies come back clean) could introduce a life-threatening condition to the recipient. When a member of the tissue team calls the NOK to get consent for donation, they go through a lengthy questionnaire to determine if donation is even appropriate. There are a handful of “deal breaker” questions that are red flags for high risk, including questions about criminal history and time spent in jail or prison. If the answer to even one of these questions is yes, the tissue bank won’t accept the donation.
Screening is less strenuous with organ transplants because the recipient is likely to die without it anyway…so heightened risk for new infection is not the greatest concern.
So, if tissues from current or former inmates are rejected because they’re tissues from current or former inmates, and we’re not likely to know in advance which individuals will end up on life-support before dying, it seems silly to give inmates reduced sentences because they MIGHT one day be able to donate a kidney. The chances are very slim that “society” would ever be able to collect on this debt.
$
Wait a minute--we're talking about taking a kidney from a living inmate? That's a little different. That's a debt we know we could collect on. How does spending 15 years lifting weights, watching cable tv (which I don't even have) and trying not to drop the soap compare with saving a life in terms of compensation for societal debt? I don't think that's repugnant at all.
$
As one who is currently on the waiting list for a kidney, I would have to agree with the program as saving my life so I can continue raising my son will save two lives. Society benefits, I benefit and the prisoners benefit with less time behind bars. win-win-win!
What is your view, HB?
It is a difficult question with moral issues on all sides. I typically would side on solutions that result in saving lives, but I do not believe criminals should be able to sell themselves to avoid their just punishment.
I think each case would have to be taken individually. Allowing a mass murderer to avoid his/her just punishment would be unacceptable. I do not believe this issue can be legislated across the board.
HB,
Another question for you.
A couple of weeks ago, following an interesting debate about our criminal justice system, you asserted that subjective tests for determining an individual's intent were a bad idea.
Now, on this issue, you think case-by-case decisions are appropriate.
Can you reconcile these positions?
Without rehashing the debate, I asserted that "intent" cannot be "scientifically" proven as others seems to imply.
It is therefore left as somewhat subjective leading to differing punishments for similar crimes.
I have no problem with subjective decisions when all the information is reviewed and taken in consideration to try and make the right decision. We're human and we'll make mistakes.
I believe legislation is misused in some of these situations.
The initial punishment is already established based on the crime committed in these cases and it is now left up to others to decide if actions such as these mitigates some reprieve in the punishment imposed.
I would think that it makes a lot more sense and better benefits society to reduce sentences for organ donors rather than having sentencing reduced just to alleviate overcrowding in prisons.
Post a Comment
<< Home