Organ Transplant Debate

[Rich Parsons]

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Organ Transplants going to convicted felons in jail. Do you think this should be allowed or not? and Why?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/878794.asp

 

[dearnis.com]

.....don't get me started!!!


:soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox:

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

Originally posted by dearnis.com
.....don't get me started!!!


:soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox:

I see some sparring coming on with this topic. :boxing:
It's an interesting subject though, can't wait to see the responses. What do I think, let me mull it over a while and get back to you. Oh, does this include those cons on death row ...

 

[Jill666]

I'll get back to you.

 

[arnisador]

...the State is responsible for these people. How do you justify not giving them appropriate medical care?

Remember, convictions are overturned all the time. What if the person is serving a year plus a day for check-forging? What if the convict is Jean Valjean? Who else served time in jail--MLK?

Regrettably, I think you have to do the organ transplants--or change the way people are sentenced to include an eligibility/ no eligibility for transplants as part of the sentence. In fact, this would be OK by me--but until it happens, you can't deny people mdeical care because they're in jail.

Who would want to live in a country like that?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well as others are not afraid to argue about GOD, I thought we might discuss this issue as well.


In MY opinion they should not get a transplant. Yet, I understand that the system works the way it does and that the 'State' is required to give medical care. Now is this due medical care or research care?

I agree with Arnisador, a change needs to be made to the system that lists the person or the crime and what they are available for 'due' care or research care or what ever.


Personally, I do not think Organ Transplant is Due care and it is not average enough procedure to be performed everyday in normal fashion to soon be considered due care.


Just my thoughts, I hope to hear yours
:asian:

 

[dearnis.com]

Th estate owes them a decent minimum of health care, nothing more. The state owes them a decent minimum of housing, clothing, and food; nothing more. The state (read you a me) does not, NOT, owe convicts (and lets be clear here, the thread started with "convicted felons," which excludes MLK type scenarios, the teen shoplifter, and others) elective proceedures, experimental care, or extraordinary measures. At least not if I have to foot the bill!
Let's bear something else in mind. So as not to be accused of over-generalizing, I will speak from my own experience; the career-criminal/habitual offenders I have dealt with (read that put into prison if you like) have tended not to have jobs, or healthcare on the outside. Now, as a reward for choosing to prey on their fellow men and women rather than make an attempt at earning a decent living and paying their own way, they should have access to the best in health care?
If you want an eye opener on the relationship between criminal behavior and our helath care system spend a friday and saturday night, preferably at the full moon, volunteering in any urban emergency or trauma ward. The experience may not change your beliefs and assumptions, but it will challenge them.

End of rant, diplomatically stepping away from soapbox now....
:soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox:

(edited for spelling...another rant coming on....must fight the urge)

 

[Yari]

Got to agree with Arnisador.

Do something wrong you go to jail. That's the sentence. Nothing more nothing less. The idea of jail is that when you've done your time you should be a worthy member of society.

Easy mind set, but I know it's not like that in 'real life'.

But if you take organ transplant away, why not medical care at all, or dont feed them, or just leave them on an island to rot? Or send them into space....

Is there any reason to why somebody who doens't want to follow a certains groups rules should benifite from the fruit of the group?

The next question is do you want them to be a part of the group when they dont want to follow the rules?

If we follow this line of thinking logically we'll end up with killing everbody else.

But our world is not built up of logic. There is something fluffy inbetween ( religion, feelings and so on). And those are hard to discuss because they base themselves on assumptions, relations, social inheritanceand so on. Typically each individual has his own twist of "religion", and we have to discuss with each person. I know that we have some common ideas and ideals. And we can discuss them, and one of them is typically "You shall not kill". Some would say that this means not to kill, but let the guy rot is OK. Others would argue that by letting him rot your slowly killing him. So even if we agree on the concept, we dont agree. It's the same with 'love'. Do we only love those whom we dare love? Or does the meaning of human love to love everybody as the really are?

I stand for given everybody the treatment they need,so when they are out of "treatment (greater sense of the word)", they have the same chance as everbody else to function in the group they are a part of.

/Yari

 

[yilisifu]

While I would agree with part of Arnisador's position in that felons should be classified, I DON'T believe that such extraordinary measures need to be offered. There are simply too many decent, law-abiding folks out there in desperate need of the same thing but who cannot afford it.

And remember - the PUBLIC pays the bills for convicted felons.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with providing minimal health care. In fact, it's required by law. But having worked in jails and prisons, I can tell you that there are people who will get themselves tossed into the joint because they're sick and want some free medical care...or free drugs that go with free medical care.

 

[dearnis.com]

or free drugs that go with free medical care.

Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by yilisifu
there are people who will get themselves tossed into the joint because they're sick and want some free medical care...

A sad statement in and of itself! And yet, I must agree that the system is busted when things like this happen.

 

[Jill666]

I think convicted felons have a right to health care. They are being treated with Methadone, HIV cocktails, Interferon, and other outrageously expensive meds because they need them to survive. Do they get jailed to obtain this? I imagine so. I've certainly known men who committed violent felonies to get off the street or to dry out. The public detox doesn't always have a bed y'know.

However, I say no to organ transplants for felons on death row, categorically. Period. No f'n way. Waste of effort.

For felons who are serving a lot of time, well, they are poor transplant candidates for simple medical reasons. Firstly, they need a long span of immunosupressive drugs following the surgery. Can you imagine the exposure of a con in population to infectious disease? Who wants to give a con a heart transplant to see him/her die of the flu, for example. They also need anti-coagulants (blood thinners) making it easy to bleed out from a minor stab wound. 'Nuff said.

Secondly, the body can reject an organ on its own by the biological process that results from stress. Is prison stressful? Hmmm...

There is an assessment process in place to evaluate if a person is a good transplant candidate. An active drunk with Hep C isn't likely to get a fresh liver (unless he's David Crosby). Long-term felons are medically speaking poor candidates- without bringing ancillary concerns into it. So as a nurse, I'd say no. Hey, submit your application. But unless you want to parole this felon and believe they will do ALL medical follow-up and not re-offend EVER, that would be a big fat no.

:soapbox:

 

[Elfan]

In no way should prisoners be banned from reciving the medical care they need (including organ transplants). However, since donated organs are a limited resource the indivudual situation of each potential recipiant must be evaluated, (ie to take an example of an article, a convicted murdered who needs a new liver because of daily heroine use shoudn't be a very high on the list).

 

[dearnis.com]

I'm not saying that they should be banned from medical care. I am, however, saying that as a taxpayer I am unwilling to foot the bill for anything but the basics.
And I repeat my earlier statement; spend some time in an ER on Friday/saturday night and see what great candiates for high-tech medicine we are talking about.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Elfan
In no way should prisoners be banned from reciving the medical care they need (including organ transplants). However, since donated organs are a limited resource the indivudual situation of each potential recipiant must be evaluated, (ie to take an example of an article, a convicted murdered who needs a new liver because of daily heroine use shoudn't be a very high on the list).

I not after you Elfan, just using your statment.

But maybe we should just start our own form of "Logans Run".
Only those under 50 years of age whould recieve organ transplants, and those over 80 shouldn't recieve anything. What do they have to contribute, and if there sick the chances are that they are a burden for society.

And while were at it, way should anybody get help that have put themselfs in the situation freewilly??? You know that unprotected sex can give you AIDS, so why should you get treatment?

No, I dont like the idea of categorizing(sp?) people. I know that our society isn't perfect, but does that mean that our ideas and means dont have to strive for that?

/Yari

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by dearnis.com

And I repeat my earlier statement; spend some time in an ER on Friday/saturday night and see what great candiates for high-tech medicine we are talking about.

I see were your pointing, but why are they candidates?

/Yari

 

[dearnis.com]

An american trauma ward or emergency room usually sees customers from one of three groups of people at that time...
1. Crash, or other accident victims (I include fire victims and so on here as well).
2. Victims of domestic violence.
3. Members of the criminal underclass having a bad night resulting from their chosen way of life, including, but not limited to, being stabbed, shot, run over, beat up, overdosing, attempting suicide (intentional), attempting suicide (incidental to other activity), and so on.

One of the best places to find a felon, other than prison, is the ER (ask an ER nurse!)

maybe we should just start our own form of "Logans Run".

I see where you are going here, let me draw the distintion I see differently. I don't mind helping those who have outlived their usefulness (so to speak). They contributed, now we help them in their final years. Fine.
I certainly don't mind helping those who can't yet help themselves (that is a big part of what I do every day). I don't even mind helping, to a point, the person who has made bad choices.

I do mind helping those who prey on the rest of us.

 

[Elfan]

Yari, you raise a good point. In an ideal world the only considerations for organ transplant would be the urgency of the need and how effective it would be. Purley medical matters. However, this isn't the ideal and I think that being a prisoner unable to pay on their own (ie thus taxpayer money needs to be diverted for expenseive surgery) is a reasonably consideration.

Just to clarify, I'm speaking of current prisoners, not their criminal record (ie if they were convicted in the past that shoudn't be a consideration for a medical discion).

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Elfan
However, this isn't the ideal

Which is true!

But do we define the path we are on by the point in the horisont, or by the next step you take?


/Yari

 

[Nightingale]

the problem with not permitting inmates access to transplants is this:

if you start basing medical care on morality, you run into problems. If we start saying that someone who's a felon can't receive an organ transplant (remember, driving over 100 miles an hour is a felony) where does it stop? These people weren't sentenced to death.

Regarding money - there are not many people out there who end up completely paying for their own medical treatment, especially things like transplants. Remember those siamese twin girls who were joined at the head? Their family didn't pay much, if anything. And that teenager who accidentally got the wrong organs? ditto.

Medical decisions should be based on medical need. We can't start making moral judgements about who gets what organ.