Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Laurenann7094 t1_j697uxl wrote

Reply to comment by nan_adams in yes this is a real bill that has been introduced by Ministry_of__Truth

Your arguments are all about issues with people receiving transplants. But I don't see what that has to do with allowing prisoners to join the list of possible matches. Issues are addressed on a case by case basis once a match is made.

As you are someone who has received multiple organ transplants, it is strange to want to gatekeep transplants for other people.

>Organ donation is a huge process.

Bone marrow donation is not a huge process. There are kids dying while waiting for rare matches.

−2

nan_adams t1_j6a9bj1 wrote

As I explained in my post, offering reduced sentencing for joining the transplant list is ethically ambiguous and undermines the altruistic nature of donation. If a prisoner wanted to donate without the reduced sentencing that would be altruistic.

I am someone who received multiple transplants from living donors. I care about the people who donated to me. I am not “gatekeeping” transplants - I am advocating for the rights of the donor.

Our justice system is often inequitable; this plan would put incarcerated persons in a compromising position and could influence them to make a major life decision that they would not ordinarily make if they weren’t incarcerated. On top of that you have the fact that the population of incarcerated persons is majorly skewed racially and socioeconomically you’re creating a system that robs minorities and lower income people of true autonomy and essentially using them as spare parts. If you can’t see how that’s ethically reprehensible I don’t know what to tell you.

I’m very aware people die on transplant lists - not sure why you’re telling me, a person who has been on the list twice, how it works. This is not a solution to the waiting list.

8

Polynya t1_j6asng1 wrote

So long as it’s not coercive (they aren’t getting punished or having their sentences elongated for not donations) there is nothing ethically dubious about it. Who cares they are getting something in return? Do we expect the farmer to grow food simply because it’s morally good to feed people or the doctor to forgo payment for services because it’s the right thing to do?

The world would be better if we dropped the insane prudishness and high minded moralizing around organ and marrow donation. The USA is the source of 70% of the world’s blood plasma, because we allow people to be paid for it. Allowing people to get paid for doing something good, whether in money or reduce prison sentences, is morally fine. It generates new organs and marrow that will save peoples lives, lives which otherwise probably wouldn’t be saved. So then how can you say that’s bad?

In fact, we should allow markets for kidney, liver, and marrow - all are things that can be donated safely without significant long-term problems for the donater, and will save peoples lives (and also money by cutting down on the amount of time people are waiting for a donation).

−2