Should a convicted killer get a liver transplant?- and other organ donation issues

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I just got the impression he would deny her a new liver because she's a convict. Now that would be silly.

it says she's serving life, but it doesn't say without parole, so it's not clear cut at all.

but in MY opinion, people who destroy their liver via drugs / alcohol should not get them before needy people who have done nothing agsint their own bodies.

don't hospitals (in the US) do that too?

[tinyp3nis]

From the link:

YORK, Nebraska (AP) -- Calvin Stock's life was saved by a liver transplant three years ago, and he would hate to see anyone else lose their chance at survival because a convicted killer was ahead of them on the transplant list.

I don't object her having one if livers were of abundance. I do think "bad people" shouldn't get ahead in the line, I'm not totally sure she is a bad person, but "most likely" fits better than "probably" here.
and

Joy, convicted of murdering another prostitute in Omaha in 1983, admits her liver was ruined by almost daily heroin and alcohol abuse over nine years.

Not that I have anything againts alcohol or drugs, but people who haven't had any influence on their condition go prior the ones that have had, even as innocent as this. Of course she didn't have intent to break her liver, however I doubt she was oblivious to the health issues.

"Whether or not she's a prisoner or not does not enter the equation," Lagnas said. Ethically as a physician, it's our responsibility to be advocates for whatever patients we are treating."

Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross with the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said people should receive transplants based on need, not social standards.

"I'm a workaholic, and when I get my first heart attack I'll say I've earned it but no one will keep me off a list for that," Ross said. "We don't blame the workaholic but we blame the alcoholic. ... Yeah, she belongs on the list like I belong on the list."

And finally some total BS. The bolded part is so obvious, yet so irrelevant. It's about choosing the patient first. Then that. It really seems that _whatever_ patient is being treated, and she's not really young either (49). Also, society encourages work, not alcohol. The convict belongs to the list, not on top thought so sad so sad.

Edit: Did I say anything that wasn't already said? Maybe not

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
I don't object her having one if livers were of abundance. I do think "bad people" shouldn't get ahead in the line, I'm not totally sure she is a bad person, but "most likely" fits better than "probably" here.

I agree, as long as she can wait. If she is about to die, I reckon she will get the transplant first.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


what if he gets a headache or severe diarreha? shouldn't he get treatment for that either?

This is representative of what's wrong with the world today. Bastarization of concepts.
Is the convicted killer denying a headache or diarreha to someone in need?

[Gangerolf]

I'm just wondering if you'd deny her a liver even if there were more than enough available

[SlowwHand]

The point is, there's not livers to go around.

And, I recognize aspirin or milk of magnesia would seem a better analogy, but I was attempting to illustrate bastardization of a concept.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by AnnC
In my opinion, organ-transplant patients should be prioritized according to state of health, age, and family status like this:

1. People who are likely to die within weeks if they don't get a transplant should be first in line whenever an organ becomes available, then...

2. Children and young adults age 21 and under.

3. Parents with children under the age of 18.

4. Parents with children over 18.

5. Everybody else.

According to these criteria, the murderer would be in category 4. And where medical decisions are concerned, her status as a convict should be immaterial.

Don't like these at all. For instance, category 1 should also be weighed against the probability of the person dying anyway. For instance, I was appalled they gave a new liver to Mickey Mantle. He died a short while later, and there was a waste of an organ that could have gone to a less hopeless cause.

Children aren't going to be competing with adults for most organs, so they are kind of a special case.

As for everyone esle, it should be blind to age, race, social status, family status, etc. I don't see why a parent should be put ahead of me on the list, especially one whose kids are over 18.

As for this woman, if she is in line to get an organ and it becomes available, and she stands a good chance of surviving a while with it, then I see no reason for her not to have the operation.

[Az]

Before I go talking I should say that my father is a liver transplant receiver, he received it from a young woman that died in a car accident, she was mother of one. May she rest in peace.

As for everyone esle, it should be blind to age, race, social status, family status, etc. I don't see why a parent should be put ahead of me on the list, especially one whose kids are over 18.

I can see your point for people who's kids are over 18, but If a regular person dies, say, you, then you're dead. If he dies, he dies, AND his son becomes a social case, with a probabity of his family falling apart, etc.

Generally, I think that post-mortum (sp?) compulsory organ donation is the way to go. I am about to volounteer anyway, but that would be just me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Generally, I think that post-mortum (sp?) compulsory organ donation is the way to go.

I tend to agree.

[Dis]

that's a tricky issue.

I believe in human rights above all else. but if you're dead, you're not really human are you . So maybe rights don't mean much when you die.

But you have to think of the family's rights. Ceremonial burial practices are something that nearly every civilization practices in some form or another. It obviously is an important part of the human pysche. And some family's would not want their deceased love ones desecrated.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think it should be mandatory to give your organs.

But I think that if you're in an accident and you haven't signed an organ-donor card then you should go to the back of the line.

[KrazyHorse]

And yes, a convicted killer should have an equal shot at donated organs. The list shouldn't take AnnC's bloody family nonsense into account either. Medical viability of the recipient should be taken into consideration, however.

[tinyp3nis]

And yes, a convicted killer should have an equal shot at donated organs.

Okay... but didn't you say:

But I think that if you're in an accident and you haven't signed an organ-donor card then you should go to the back of the line.

Uh Why should this matter? Because it's related to the issue? Not because he is doing a good thing? Does the impact you have on society / other people matter or no?

[Ben Kenobi]

If one is not willing to give up an organ for someone else, why should one expect to receive one?

That's the thought that Dissident tries to express above, although his implementation could be improved.

I think we will all agree that children should be moved to the front of the line, followed by medical urgency, and medical feasibility. After this we can include, Boris' suggestion of parents with children younger than 18.

[Japher]

A convicted killer should have equal rights to organ transplants, the gov decreed it some time ago. Yet, they shouldn't be pushed to the top of list. Also, if your serving life, you should have no chance of it, since you are suppose to serve your "natural life" as the sentence.