posted on June 16, 2003 10:11:04 PM new
This death row inmate was suffering from kidney failure and was on dialysis at a cost of $120,000.00 a year. A new kidney would cost $100,000.00. They say he could live another decade with appeals, so do you think they still made the correct decision?
posted on June 17, 2003 03:35:31 AM new
I feel like I am outside my body when I say this, but yes I do think they made the right decision. There are far too many law abiding citizens waiting for a kidney. They should be taken care of first. In fact, my feeling on it is that the children waiting for kidneys should come before anyone else waiting. JMO
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 17, 2003 04:51:18 AM new
Not only yes, but Hell yes...
as Cheryl pointed out, many many citizens that are not criminals need that kidney... besides maybe "ooopss, who turned off the machine", will end that expense.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on June 17, 2003 06:08:08 AM new
This is a tough question with strong arguments on both sides of the issue. I would vote to allow the transplant. States have an obligation to provide medical care for inmates and withholding medical treatment violates the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Since all criminals have the right to have their case appealed, it would be a denial of due process to allow a person who is appealing to die if the death is medically preventable. Furthermore, this inmate's appeal may last 10 years or more and during that time, dialysis will be more costly than a transplant. It's also important to note that only one half of death-row prisoners are ever executed. This guy may be innocent.
You made some good points, too. But, how would you feel if it were, say, your mother waiting for a kidney transplant and a criminal on death row received it instead? I think what is needed is an appeal process that doesn't take 10 years. Yes, many are not executed but, in the meantime they use and abuse the system over and over again. Today's criminals are a lot smarter than yesterday's. They have law books at their disposal. They file frivilous law suits costing tax payers far more than keeping them on dialysis. Only God and the man who was convicted of the crime know if he truly did it. Of course if you ask, 99.9% of the people sitting on death row will say they are innocent. As much as I don't agree with the death penalty, I cannot make myself feel that this person should get the kidney.
I know someone who died waiting for a kidney that never came. A father of two children. A hard worker who provided for his family. A good citizen and neighbor. It is not a pleasant way to go. Should a criminal have gotten one before him? A very tough issue.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 17, 2003 06:29 AM ]
Kindness is seeing that he is kept comfortable (I agree with that), seeing that he gets the necessary dialysis (I agree with that), and finding a way to make his appeal process go quicker so that if he is innocent he can get the kidney he needs (if innocent, I will agree with that). But, if he is denied an appeal and faces death (I don't agree with that), then the kidney should go to someone else.
Don't you agree?
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jun 17, 2003 06:36 AM ]
posted on June 17, 2003 06:56:06 AM new
As I said, it's a tough call. Basing the right to a kidney on social worth has not been implemented so far. That would indeed be a difficult determination to make.
posted on June 17, 2003 07:44:00 AM new
The individual has been convicted and is a FELON until any appeal proves otherwise. A convicted felon loses some of his rights such as right to bear arms and to vote. He does not lose his right to health care but that is being provided to him. I would say that he should not get the kidney but I would venture to guess the supreme court may rule otherwise if it was his turn on the list. I have a sister who was murdered and if the individual that is in prison for the murder got a kidney over someone else I would have a hard time with that so my opinion is probably a little biased on this one. However on this individual case the inmate did not meet all the criteria to be put on the list anyway so he will no be getting one.
posted on June 17, 2003 08:44:35 AM new
It's not clear from the article the reason for this denial whether medical or social. It strikes me as a bad trend when medical decisions are made based on social agenda rather than need. If felons are denied is it all felons or some felons, do those convicted of murder 1 get denied but manslaughter is approved? How about thieves, embezzlers, fraudsters. Current drug users are not allowed into the programs but what about a person convicted of drug use that cleaned up their act. Does it matter what drug? No heroin or cocaine users but pot is OK?
The irony is that the state provides medical care for inmates but the citizenry is hung out to dry. Universal health care including a comprehensive prescription benefit is needed for every American now. If one person does not have coverage that is too many.
I know what it feels like to wait for an organ. I'm a post liver transplant patient.
posted on June 17, 2003 08:49:00 AM new
The greater problem here is not the legal situation but the medical decision process.
Thus far medical ethics dictates that transplants be based solely on the medical situation and nothing else.
Doctors do not want social and cultural value elements introduced into the equation.
Medical urgency, organ compatibility, survivability, willingness and ability to follow strict aftercare regimens, are all absent social values that many want to impress on the organ transplant decision process.
While it seems OK to deny criminals, once we breach using social value criteria, it gets very murky.
What about age ? Should a 20 year old go ahead of a 55 year old ? What if the 55 year old is a doctor or runs a business that employs thousands ? Or if the 20 year old is a genius or a professional level athelete ? Wouldn't the 20 year old get much more use out of the organ ? What if the 55 year old was a smoker and drinker to the level of abuse and his lifestyle caused the need for the transplant ?
How about two 43 year old women ? One has 4 children all under age 10, and the other no children. Shouldn't the mother get the transplant ? What if the mother is on welfare and the other is an executive ?
As unfair as it sometimes may seem, keeping social values out of transplant decisions is the way to go.
If the criminal gets to the top of the list, so be it, let him/her have the transplant based on medical reasons and nothing else.
posted on June 17, 2003 08:57:21 AM new
Good point about the poor guy with no insurance. He would have a better chance at getting a transplant if he were to commit a crime and get put in state care. Those that take advantage of the state systems are the ones that destroy it for those who really need it. I am all for needed state assistance but far to many people see that as a full time job. Well I guess I've strayed way off topic but I would say the criteria list is the ost important thing to meet. Meeting all of that needs on that list should be the bottom determining factor of a transplact.
[ edited by tomyou on Jun 17, 2003 08:58 AM ]
posted on June 17, 2003 10:04:15 AM new
There is a really strict protocol for evaluating and ranking people on transplant lists. I do not think a person's incarceration status should be a factor in that list.*
What happens to this guy if tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds the death penalty unconstitutional and his sentence is commuted to life in prison?
*(I don't think poverty should be a factor, either, but it is. When it appeared that my state was going to end its Medically Needy program in May, several people were dropped from transplant lists b/c their doctors assumed they would no longer have any chance of affording the anti-rejection drug regimin.
------------------- We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.
------------The Talmud
posted on June 17, 2003 12:40:15 PM new
OT - tomyou and davebraun, maybe I'm overly sensitive today, but your shared info - a murdered sister and a liver transplant, made me cry. I wish you two the best. I really mean that.
tomyou, nobody stays on topic - that's half the fun.
posted on June 17, 2003 02:44:34 PM new
The guy's a murderer. I say no on the kidney and no on the dialysis unless he's willing to make $120,000 worth of license plates every year.
posted on June 18, 2003 12:11:37 PM new
So, as a taxpayer, you would rather spend an extra million dollars to keep this guy on dialysis, than spend the $120,000.00 for the transplant?
posted on June 18, 2003 12:30:30 PM new
I believe the point ebayauctionguy is trying to make is to deny all medical care as this is a felon. If he is a wealthy felon however and can afford to pay for the care he should be given access (his view, not mine).
posted on June 18, 2003 12:46:03 PM new
I am denied medical attention because I have no insurance and cannot afford it. So, if I become gravely ill is the solution to to go out and commit a crime? I can see auctionguy's point even if I don't agree with it. Healthcare should be available to everyone regardless of social status. It still sucks that a convicted murderer gets healthcare that is not available to poor Americans (those that don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid). What of those families who have to raise money so that their children can have a transplant operation? I have to wonder what they think about this situation.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 18, 2003 01:06:13 PM new
You are correct. Health-care should be available to all who wish access regardless of economic status. Denying access to prisoners is barbaric. Denying access to every or any American is equally barbaric.
posted on June 18, 2003 01:45:53 PM newdavebraun You are absolutely right. The outrage is not that a felon gets health care. The outrage is that Cheryl doesn't.
We need national health care. Every other civilized nation, and many that aren't, have it.
------------------- We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.
------------The Talmud
posted on June 18, 2003 04:06:50 PM new
Ooh, what a good question! I think I might. If he was doing life I'd at least reconsider my position on the issue. At least the kidney wouldn't be dead along with the man sitting on death row in a couple of years. I know that sounds heartless, but so is murder. I suppose it would depend upon the circumstances. He is eligible for parole? Will he be a productive member of society if released? Were there mitigating circumstances to the murder? You know, like the neighbor you'd like to kill for blasting salsa music at 7:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning.
Cheryl
My religion is simple, my religion is kindness.
--Dalai Llama
posted on June 18, 2003 08:08:04 PM new
I'm kind of conflicted on this one myself.
1) You cannot deny medical care to a person just becauase they are incarcerated but at the same time, why are tax payers expected to foot the bill just because you are incarcerated.
2) There are law abiding tax paying citizens that are awaiting these organs but at the same time, denying the transplant puts a larger financial burden on tax payers to pay for long term dialisys (in addition to transportation costs to and from) for inmates who are denied transplants based soley on their inmate status.
Perhaps some enterpising insurance provider should work out a labor for coverage program utilizing inmates to do data entry in exchange for inmate coverage plans. Give the inmates a marketable skill upon release, save tax payer money and lets face it, hospital medical costs for inmates has got tp be drastically lower per capita than the that for the general public.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 18, 2003 08:50:08 PM new
How would you like to be in an industry in which your contract is up and when entering negotiations with management you are told you have been replaced by convict labor your services are no longer needed we have outsourced our IT department to the local prison.
The question is why have you as a taxpayer accepted the fact that your taxes do not provide health coverage for all Americans.
You are confusing financial and ethical issues. How organs are to be allocated should be a medical question based on age, health, survivability etc. Not race, creed, color, religion and economics. Certain racial groups are disproportionally incarcerated. Two are convicted of the same crime, one walks one is jailed. Should the inmate be penalized if waiting for the same hospital bed while the other on probation is not?
posted on June 18, 2003 10:47:42 PM new
::The question is why have you as a taxpayer accepted the fact that your taxes do not provide health coverage for all Americans. ::
Because quite simply - that is the reality.
Would I like for it to be different? You bet your ass I would, I am one of the millions of uninsured americans that must (today in fact) weigh financial resources against medical need. Rather than being able to go to a doctor to have an infection drained and treated I had to turn to a little internet research, a trip accross the border for meds and the assistance of my neighbor the unsquimish body piecer to lance and a little hope that this does the trick. It pisses me the hell of that had I left my ID at home and done a little strategic j-walking I could have had it done professionally on the states dime, gotten two free meals and be home in the morning with a $35 fine to pay.
I do my battles on that front on election day but in the meantime I accept the reality of the current situation and try to find the best solutions within the actual perameters as opposed to the optimal ones.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on June 21, 2003 10:53:37 AM new
Actually, I view the dialysis cost as a moot point.
If the inmate doesn't get the kidney (stays on dialysis), the state (us) pays for his dialysis.
If the inmate does get the kidney, another patient does not get it. Then that person (or his insurance company, ie. 'us') will still have to pay for his dialysis.
