Should Prisoners Be Allowed to Donate Their Organs?

southsiderosie

There is an interesting debate on the NY Times website: should prisoners be allowed to donate their organs?

TBH, this isn't really something I've contemplated. But according to the different perspectives, the pros seem to be: inmates want to and there is a shortage, while the cons seem to be numerous: inmates could be coerced, it is medically unethical, the inmate population has a higher prevalence of infectious disease including HIV and hepatitis, and it would create perverse incentives to incarcerate even more people.

I have to admit, I am uncomfortable with the idea, simply because I think the scope for abuse is so great. However, it is difficult for me to say that, as I have spent much of the last two months helping to care for my godfather who is in the final throes of end stage liver failure. Watching someone slowly sicken and die while waiting for a transplant is excruciating, but at the same time because the situation is so desperate, I can see how the scope for abuse and exploitation of vulnerable populations is so great. But what do other people think?

wretcheddomain

Does this apply to paedophiles and rapists?

galwayrush

Aparently they are 'allowed' in China.

southsiderosie

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Does this apply to paedophiles and rapists?

The debate was sparked by a change in the law in Utah, which would allow any inmate to sign up to be an organ donor. So I guess it would apply to everyone.

wretcheddomain

southsiderosie wrote: »

The debate was sparked by a change in the law in Utah, which would allow any inmate to sign up to be an organ donor. So I guess it would apply to everyone.

Begin compulsory castration and removal of the penile organ at once.

Clandestine

Why not? Their organs are as good as anyone elses.

token101

Surely they'd test for HIV and the likes in everyone anyway so it'd be kind of a non issue? If they want to I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. If my kids were saved by a paedophile's heart I don't think I'd really care about the fact that he was a paedophile to be honest.

Uriel.

Clandestine wrote: »

Why not? Their organs are as good as anyone elses.

Will the organ not have criminal dna in it and slowly infect the recipient and turn them into a raging criminal head. You know like what snake's hair did to Homer?

The only good that could come out of this whacky idea is a good horror movie like the eye (jap version)

shopaholic01

I think they should be allowed to donate their organs if they die while in prison, as the law in Utah now permits. The same tests used for all organ donation will ensure donors are suitable (link mentioned higher risk of HIV and hepatitis).

I would be more concerned about them being living donors, too much risk of them being 'encouraged' to donate. As far as I know, living donors can only donate one kidney, bone marrow and blood - other organs are essential.

southsiderosie

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I think they should be allowed to donate their organs if they die while in prison, as the law in Utah now permits. The same tests used for all organ donation will ensure donors are suitable (link mentioned higher risk of HIV and hepatitis).

I would be more concerned about them being living donors, too much risk of them being 'encouraged' to donate. As far as I know, living donors can only donate one kidney, bone marrow and blood - other organs are essential.

You can donate a piece of your liver because it can regenerate itself.

The issue with infectious disease was, you can test for it, but unless someone is then quarantined, you can't guarantee they are disease-free when the donation happens.

Uriel.

southsiderosie wrote: »

You can donate a piece of your liver because it can regenerate itself.

The issue with infectious disease was, you can test for it, but unless someone is then quarantined, you can't guarantee they are disease-free when the donation happens.

Presumably with a prison environment they'd have to be in a type of solitary confinement for at least 6 weeks prior to any type of transplant being scheduled.

Didn't realise the liver could regenerate so much? Knew it had regenerative capabilities but to regenerate after have a lump removed is interesting.

Is there value to donating a piece of the liver (other than research)?

shopaholic01

southsiderosie wrote: »

You can donate a piece of your liver because it can regenerate itself.

I didn't know that. I have heard of people being on a register for bone marrow, is there a similar one for liver transplants?

southsiderosie wrote: »

The issue with infectious disease was, you can test for it, but unless someone is then quarantined, you can't guarantee they are disease-free when the donation happens.

Ah, makes sense - I wonder would it be possible to quarantine them for the required period of time?

southsiderosie

Uriel. wrote: »

Presumably with a prison environment they'd have to be in a type of solitary confinement for at least 6 weeks prior to any type of transplant being scheduled.

Didn't realise the liver could regenerate so much? Knew it had regenerative capabilities but to regenerate after have a lump removed is interesting.

Is there value to donating a piece of the liver (other than research)?

It can be used in a transplant in some cases - my brothers and I were looking into being living donors for my godfather, but he didn't qualify. A family friend gave birth to a child with a liver disorder, and donated a piece of her liver to him (unfortunately, he didn't survive).

The capacity to be a living donor for both livers and kidneys is part of why I think there is so much scope for abuse if inmates can be donors.

shopaholic01

southsiderosie wrote: »

The capacity to be a living donor for both livers and kidneys is part of why I think there is so much scope for abuse if inmates can be donors.

Organs for sale - contact your local prison. Way too easy for it to be abused.

Steve O

Depends on the crime really.

The Backwards Man

I never realised that they weren't allowed to be donors. What about someone who spent three months in the clink when they were 18?

southsiderosie

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I never realised that they weren't allowed to be donors. What about someone who spent three months in the clink when they were 18?

They can't while they are in jail - it only applied to active convicts, not ex-cons (I don't think, anyway?).

Odysseus

Steve O wrote: »

Depends on the crime really.

In what way could it depend on the crime?

dark crystal

Prisoner's organs are just as good as anyone else's. I don't see the issue.

Scruffles

prisoners=a vulnerable population?
in own view they arent a vulnerable group,the fact theyre in jail is because they had the capacity and strength to assert themselves in a serious or multiple crime whilst taking advantage of victims; in many cases the victims are the ones who were deliberately targeted due to being the vulnerable ones; eg,animals,babies, kids, disabled, blind, deaf, mentaly ill,elderly,terminaly ill...

anyway am surprised they arent allowed to donate organs,in western countries woudnt they be safe from corruption of it?
the lags who cark it in jail shoud be relieved of all useful organs,at least they woud be in the right direction of paying their debt back to society.

shopaholic01

Steve O wrote: »

Depends on the crime really.

Would you turn down the chance of a life saving organ transplant if there was a chance the donor was a convict? You aren't told the identity of the donor.

krudler

Well no because if you take a body part from someone evil and put it into someone good then they turn evil, I've seen enough movies to know this is fact.

Siuin

Uriel. wrote: »

Will the organ not have criminal dna in it and slowly infect the recipient and turn them into a raging criminal head. You know like what snake's hair did to Homer?

The only good that could come out of this whacky idea is a good horror movie like the eye (jap version)

The man has a point! :eek:


For the love of God, has Face-Off taught us nothing?? :mad:

dd972

Some of them might be Pianists.

poisonated

Not only should they be allowed but an incentive should be given such as reduced time etc. The only problem (I can see) with this approach is that it may lead to people with infectious diseases donating in a desperate attempt to get out of prison early. However, surely there could be tests done to prevent this.

southsiderosie

poisonated wrote: »

Not only should they be allowed but an incentive should be given such as reduced time etc. The only problem (I can see) with this approach is that it may lead to people with infectious diseases donating in a desperate attempt to get out of prison early. However, surely there could be tests done to prevent this.

But this is exactly why they shouldn't be able to - incarcerating someone, and then telling them that they can get out sooner if they are an organ donor is inherently coercive. This is especially true given the levels of incarceration in the US.

Steve O

krudler wrote: »

Well no because if you take a body part from someone evil and put it into someone good then they turn evil, I've seen enough movies to know this is fact.

Of course, I mean imagine having the black heart of Lincoln Burrows after he murdered that poor man.

Steve O

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Would you turn down the chance of a life saving organ transplant if there was a chance the donor was a convict? You aren't told the identity of the donor.

It was a ****ing joke.

My name is URL

I gave blood last week.. have been doing so for years at this stage. Every time I go in I'm asked the same old questions.. have I slept with another man, have I had sex with someone who may have had sex with a person with HIV (how the fcuk am I supposed to even know that?).. have I been in prison?.. eh, it's been 3 months since I was last here, and I've been dealing with you for 3+ years.. I haven't spontaneously become gay or went all Walter White.

Seriously seems to be too much time spent asking about certain things. It's funny mind.. as long as I've been giving blood; I have never once been asked to prove my identity, provide ID or even share the name of my GP. I could be lying through my teeth and they wouldn't even know.. they'd struggle to even verify the details I have provided them with due to data protection and sharing laws. By the time any deceit could be detected the blood would already be used.

Why don't they just test donors in advance instead of asking the same questions to the same people dozens of times?

Seems like an awful waste of bloody time...

uch

Atari Jaguar