Do you think a criminal on death row should recieve an organ transplant?

Question

What is your opinion?
Do you think convicts should recieve the same medical treatment as anyone else? Who should pay for this?
Should the severity of the crime determine what level of medical treatment a criminal recieves?

Answer 1

If that individual can pay the bill,I say go for it.However , taxpayers should not have to pay for an organ transplant.They have already had their society damaged by the criminal,they have already paid his court costs and paid to keep him confined.Why should the masses of good citizens suffer more for this persons unruly behaviour?

Answer 2

I believe that since the criminal has already a set death day then the organ should not be given to the criminal and should be given instead to a person in need who does not have a set death day. Giving the organ to a criminal on death row would just be throwing money away since that person is going to die anyways.
I believe that criminals should be given the same medical treatment, paid by the justice system, because some of them will be rehabilitated and can come out and be productive members of society.
Yes, the severity of the crime should determine what level of medical treatment a criminal should recieve. Why should someone on death row get a liver when a father of 4 needs one just as much and has never committed a crime?

Answer 3

A qualified yes. Remember that we have the Eighth Amendment proscription on "cruel and unusual punishment." Letting a diabetic prisoner sit in a cell without insulin, causing unnecessary pain, is cruel and unusual. Letting a death row inmate just have a heart attack in his cell is also cruel and unusual (and it probably also violates due process, as most likely the death row inmate is still appealing his conviction or sentence).
Likewise, if any inmate, death row or not, needs an organ transplant, and a donor organ comes available, and the inmate qualifies, AND the inmate is on the top of the organ donation list, then he would be entitled to the transplant at state expense. Now, my qualification comes because an inmate is not entitled to the world's best medical care, but just reasonably quality medical care. It may be that a transplant is recommended, but not essential to the inmate's survival. Then, if doctors state that the transplant is not required, then the state has no obligation to provide the transplant. (It may, however, have an obligation to provide transportation to a medical facility if the inmate or his family could actually pay for the transplant himself.)

Answer 4

that would be the ethical thing to do, however i don't think someone on death row should receive a healthy organ when someone who is in critical need and a law abiding citizen should suffer without it. i think that they should receive the same medical treatment as anyone else providing their not on death row i mean what would be the point anyway? and i think they should pay for their own medical treatment or their families if it's possible. i don't think the severity of the crime would have anything to do with it myself. it's really hard to say, good question

Answer 5

They shouldn't get an organ transplant and then have the state kill the person and destroy that organ. That would allow people to die that really needed the organ. They should recieve medical attention to keep their quality of life up to the standards of anyone else in prison, but not medical treatment to save a life the state will soon end

Answer 6

in my opinion, no. less than the regulation, the State is had to maintain the well being of their inmates and furnish genuine looking clinical clinical look after the length of their sentence, notwithstanding in the adventure that they are on lack of existence row. Now even if organ transplants are considered genuine looking, i do not comprehend and would variety from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, yet I doubt any lack of existence row inmate will be eligible for the organ transplant list besides. Plus, i'd imagine any lack of existence row inmates would in all likelihood refuse that type of clinical care, and clinical clinical care can't be forced upon everyone except they don't seem appearing of sound ideas and body.

Answer 7

If the criminal is on death row I don't think they should receive an organ transplant. I think we should expedite there day of execution. I don't feel that as a tax payer who has committed no crimes that I should pay for their medical care. I have to work everyday for my insurance and then pay co-pays, so should they. I honestly believe that criminals have to may rights in our penal system as is, the last thing I want to give them is an organ that could go to someone who better deserves it!

Answer 8

There is usually always a waiting list for various organs, and I dont feel a person on death row should get an organ, versus someone like a woman with small children, whos life depended on that organ....It would be a waste of the organ, altogether.

Answer 9

I guess it would depend, at first I thought what would the point be since they are going to die anyway. But I was watching something the other day where an innocent man was in prison for 10 years and he was on death row when he got released after they found out he did not commit the crime. So I would say it depends on if they are one of the many wrongly accused.

Answer 10

Organ transplant? No. That's not standard medical care because often there are a shortage of organs and medical professionals have to choose between candidates and a criminal on death row would be wasting that gift.

Other standard medical treatment- sure.

Answer 11

I think there is a great big line for organ transplant so I don't think this would ever happen.

But here's an idea: What if they allowed the condemed to jump to the front of the organ line. He gets the "lets say kidney" That he needs but he must sign a waiver that says upon his execution all of his organs will be deciminated to those waiting for organs.