Should Death Row Inmates be Required to be Organ Donors - Research Paper Example

? Should Death Row Inmates Be Required To Be Organ Donors? Number and of the As has been argued in this paper, there are very many patients who die every year for want of organ transplant. These people would be saved through organ donation. Unfortunately, the demand for the organs exceeds the available supply. It therefore means that for every harvested organ, there will be an additional life saved. But then, any organ transplant should be voluntary and out of donor’s free will. They must not be coerced by legislations and policies to do so. Other segment of society must also be targeted. Thus, there should be massive educational and awareness programs and other imitative to let the people appreciate the need for organ donation support. The government could consider giving some kind of allowance, benefits and incentives to those who donate their organs. The issue of family role in matters relating to organ donation and donor decision also need to be addressed. Key Words: Death row inmates, Organ, Organ donation, Organ transplant Should death row inmates be required to be organ donors? There have been proposals among various stakeholders including the legislators and scholars that death row inmates be allowed or worse still, required to donate organs shortly before execution. Others have suggested that the death row prisoners should have their sentences converted to life imprisonment without parole upon donating their kidney, bone marrow or any other organ that may be suitable for transplant. This is seen as a useful way of tapping their organs which would have otherwise been wasted upon execution. However, the issue as to whether the prisoners on the death row should be required to donate organs is a very complex one and involving intricate medical, ethical and legal issues all which needs to be resolved if the most appropriate position is to be reached. While donation of an organ by these prisoners may save some patients in a very desperate situation, it is very vital that their voluntary consent is got and that they are not coerced by legislations and policies to donate the organs. Medical perspectives Organ transplant from the prisoners has a lot of potential health risks. A number of homosexual sex scandals associated with the prison life. 1This implies that the prisoners stand a significantly high risk of being with a transmissible diseases and health conditions, particularly HIV and hepatitis. It is very important that any organ to be transplanted to a recipient must be maximally healthy and this depends on the health of the donor. Whereas there are bloods test that the medics concerned may be able to carry to verify the health of the donor prior to donation, the medics submit that these test methods are not and cannot be a hundred percent effective. As such none of the blood test and screening can be trusted to completely rule out the possibility of a donor being free from these transmissible illnesses. This explains why the doctors have always sought to obtain the history of the donors before making their donation. Even the idea of carryon gouty testing and screening itself raises public issues. Because a very rigorous testing process is to be undertaken, to the extent of clearing any scintilla out doubt as to the health risks posed by the donor to the recipient, lots of public funds will be used in testing the prisoner. This follows from the fact that the government’s department concerned will be interested in knowing the prisoners who are fit to donate and those who are not. In the long run lots of funds may be wasted. This is in contrast with the optional and voluntary donation, where in most cases only those who are at least certain of their health well being will be going to seek testing. The government will therefore be incurring unnecessary expenditure to meet tests and screening which may in the long run end up not being useful. A lot of time will also be wasted carrying out a routine test of those who are lined to provide organ transplant in the name of determining their health status. Whereas the prisoners could as well voluntarily give their health and social history as a pre-donation verification process, there is again no guarantee that the information that they are going to give is true and accurate. There are three main reasons that may compromise the reliability of such a history. First, the prisoners are at a pressure to hide their identity, thus may not be comfortable revealing the negative side of their history for fear of further action, or stigma. This is particularly with the prisoners who have been victims of or parties to homosexuality while at the prisons or elsewhere. Secondly, the fact that the death row victims are destined to death may provide them with a little incentive in taking into account the interest of the recipient, who will remain enjoying the very life that the prisoner has been denied through death sentencing. Thirdly, if transplant is put a legal requirement, then it would be highly tempting for the prisoners to give misleading information as revenge or a rebellion to the law or a requirement that the prisoner might not have approved of. To avoid exposing organ recipients to all these health risks, it is paramount that the focus on the blood transplant shifts from the prisoners to another segment of the society. It would be an irreparable harm occasioned to the recipient, if only after the transplanting that it is leant that the organ that was transplanted was infected in one way or the other and that this was out of testing and verification inaccuracies. The cost incurred for further treatment and eliminating this communicable disease or condition in the long run may not justify insistence on the organ being provided by the prisoners. It would be much better focusing on the prevention rather than treatment. Legal Issues There are legal issues that arise on the idea of organ transplant as well as buying, selling to donation of the organs. 2Generally speaking, it is illegal not only in America, but virtually in all commonwealth nations to involuntarily harvest another person’s organ. It would amount to a gracious form of assault. Besides, the prisoners themselves, who are targeted to donate the organ may not enjoy the fruits or any well being of their transplant. This means that the requirement of prisoners to be reacquired to dominate their heart is unjust. To ameliorate the effect of such injustice, it has been suggested that the prisoners be allowed to sell their organs to a willing buyer and perhaps the money goes to the family. 3However, once gains there comes a legal limitation. 4In the US, it is prohibited and illegal for one to sell or buy a human organ. Putting a condition that the prisoners may have their sentences reduced from death penalty to life imprisonment is equivalent to buying the organs, as thus will be exchanging the organ with a more favorable sentencing as the cost of exchange. Forceful Organ transplant or transplanting for an incentive is therefore illegal and inconsistent with the spirit of the law. Moral and Ethical Issues There are also a number of moral questions that arise from putting a requirement that the prisoners (involuntarily) donate organs. 5It has been argued that an organ transplant should be purely a matter of true and heartfelt willingness to donate and be a purely altruistic move. Enforcing transplant through law is therefore a systematic way of denying the prisoners their freedom of choice and substituting it with a legal coercion. Still, even where organ transplant are to be done at a reward, then it would be arguable that the state will be preserving order the exchange of the services (such as being released) with donor’s organ. Further, making a legislative or policy requiring the death row prisoners to donate organs implies that the process of organ transplant and donation will be identified and associated with capital offenders- murderers and murderess. Given the negative societal perception that is associated with this group of people, other members of the societies who would have otherwise had a will to donate may decline to donate their organs. This is particularly because donation of the organ would make other society members may view them to be in the same class with the aside capital offenders. At times it may not even be the image that other society members construct of them rather the potential donors may be discouraged by their own perception that donation places them in the same class with the condemned social group , thus not donate their organs. In the long run, this would be counter-productive as what the society really look for at the moment are those who donate. The death row prisoners are very small population of the society thus a smaller proportion of the potential donors. Therefore the society should not sacrifice a larger source of donation for a fairly small population of who may provide the organs. What then is the way forward? The view that the prisoners on death row ought to donate their organs have been founded on the following grounds that are closely interrelated : (a) there are very many people who need organ transplant that those who would wish to donate; (b) the larger members of the public have been so much reluctant in donating the organs, and ;(c) the prisoners on the death row are bound to die, thus would have his or her organ being used to save a person who still has more hopes of living. Therefore, if there could be a measure to increase public participation in the process of donation, then there would be a drift of focus from having the prisoners compelled to donate their organs. To begin with, there should be a massive educational and awareness programs and other initiative to let the people appreciate the need for organ donation support. There are a number of people who could be willing to donate their organs but are afraid because they do not understand how the transplanting process occur .As such they may fear the loss of life in the process of transmission, pain in the due course or an irreparable operation. Carrying out education programs will help clear there doubts and see a greater public participation in the organ transplant than the case now. There would be no reason over focus on the prisoners being the major target for organ transplant donation. Other than information dissemination, there is also an essence to address the issue of family role in matters relating to organ donation and donor decision. This may best be understood by comparing the donation circumstances in the larger Europe, like in the United Kingdom, with the situation in America. 6In the UK and a larger part of the European continent, the absolute decision as to whether one donates an organ is purely a discretion that lies with the donor. As such, the family members will only serve as witness to the donation. In contrast with the situation in Europe, the American position is that a family member to the potential donor must grant consent at the time of death of the potential donor, even though the potential donor could be holding a donation card. This has in the long run barred a large number of potential organ donors, as their families refuses to grant consent so that the person’s organ may be donated to the recipient who could be in dire need of the organ. Therefore, rather than have policy and legislative changes that prescribes organ donation by the prisoners on death row, there should be law changes that eliminate too many barriers that hinder organ transplant , starting with dispensing with the family participation in consenting to the transplant. Other efforts that could encourage various people to donate organ should be put in place. The government could consider giving some kind of allowance, benefits and incentives to those who opt to donate their organs. These include provision of a short term disability benefits for donors how are still living as they recuperate from surgery. The government could as well offer taxation exception and allow free health services as long as one undergoes convalescence from the surgery. In this way, people will be motivated to donate their organs. These changes may be best made through the very legislative process that may also be used to introduce involuntary organ donation by the death row prisoners. Prisoners on death row are usually under tension. As such, there is need to be an assurance that their decision to serve as organ donors is entirely out of their free will. They should be free to reverse the decision any time before the actual execution. For instance, as safeguarded to ensure that the donation is entirely voluntary is giving the prisoners a grace period say 12months. During this period the prisoner would be required to re-affirm their decision. This may be done by writing to an outside agency on a monthly basis confirming that their donation is purely voluntary. The agency in question should be independent and with all the powers necessary to check and ascertain that the donation has no elements of undue influence. Conclusion As has been argued in this paper, there are very many patients who die every year for want of organ transplant. These people would be saved through organ donation. Unfortunately, the demand for the organs exceeds the available supply. It therefore means that for every harvested organ, there will be an additional life saved. But then, any organ transplant should be voluntary and out of donor’s free will. This right to voluntary choice and free will must apply to the prisoners on death rows. There is no problem in them contributing their organs, in any case they face execution and their organs will be wasted. But then, more focus should be given to alternatives such as sensitizing the public, promoting organ transplant through granting benefits among others. References Bramstedt, K.A., Florman, S. & Miller C.M. (2005). “Ethical challenges in live organ donation.” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 10 (4) 340-344. Childress, J. F. (2001). “Putting patients first in organ allocation: An ethical analysis of the U.S. debate”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10(4):365-376, Cohen, C. B. (2002) “Public policy and the sale of human organs.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics 12(1). McKenney, E. & Parker B. (2003). “Legal and ethical issues related to non heart beating organ donation.” AORN Journal, 77: 973. Read More