Final Argumentative essay

Aaron Batista 3/8/18

Essay # 2

A Second Chance at Life

Have you ever thought about what truly keeps you alive? All the important aspects of your body? You need a heart to pump blood, lungs to acquire oxygen, a liver to control your metabolism, and at least one kidney to filter out poisons. Thankfully we are at a point in time where if one of them fails, technology can keep you alive until you find a new one. Unfortunately however there are only a small number of organs available and a large amount of people who need them. What if we can bring those two numbers up to a more equal level?  Such as utilizing the organs from criminals who are sentenced to death row? Why would it be so wrong to use organs that are going to be tossed to the side anyway? By using those otherwise discarded organs we can bring hope, and even more importantly, life to those who are in need of it.

As of January 1, 2018 we have about 2,816 prisoners on death row within the United States but that number changes everyday. All of the inmates are convicted of some type of murder, treason or espionage and await their date of execution in specialized prisons. All of whom are barred from ever donating their organs. Alternatively 20 people die everyday because they do not receive the organs that they need. As recently as March 07, 2018, 12:58 pm, there are 114,987 people who need another organ, 74, 918 of them are active waiting list candidates(taken from United Network of Organ Sharing). Many pharmaceutical companies are to refusing to make the chemicals required for lethal injection which typically makes the organs unusable. Now that prisons have the need to rethink their execution methods, this is the prime opportunity to choose a way that leaves their primary organs intact (https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/health/pfizer-death-penalty-drugs/index.html).  So why aren’t we implementing a method that can save thousands of lives?

Time is of the essence when dealing with the recovery of organs that are acceptable for transplant. A report from the American Journal of Transplantation has recorded that the organs must recovered immediately after death. If the organs spend merely a few minutes without oxygen they become unusable. If properly recovered and depending on the organ, transplantation must occur anywhere between 4-72 hours. This is one of the primary reasons that the recovery of organs is so rare. If the person dies outside of a hospital then the chances of recovery are virtually zero. The next issue would be locating a surgeon that can not only arrive on time to save the organs but get it to the patient that is in need before it becomes unusable. By using the organs of an inmate marked for death, all of these factors can be planned for ahead of time. Thereby decreasing the rate of lost organs because of time limitations. This level of organization has the potential to save thousands of people, even the very same inmates they might be taking it from.

All inmates no matter  what the charge are constitutionally entitled to receiving the same healthcare as those that are not incarcerated. That also includes receiving organs that would be meant for the general population. Kate Douglas of St Louis U. recalled a man by the name of Horacio Alberto Reyes-Camarena who is suffering from kidney failure and is on death row. He is costing the state of Oregon $121,000 a year in order to stay on dialysis until his execution. In order to remedy this problem his doctor recommended placing him on a priority list for a transplant. Although he was rejected by the transplant committee, if he had received the organ it would have been unable to be reused after his eventual death. Effectively taking the new kidney out of circulation. This also applies to inmates that are sentenced to life in prison where every request so far to donate organs post mortem has been denied.

With the rising cost of healthcare in the nation, situations like this can not be overlooked but a certain rule labeled as the Estelle standard must be upheld. The Estelle standard as decided by the supreme court states that if there is a deliberate indifference to a prisoners serious medical needs counts as cruel and unusual punishment. Healthcare costs are rising at 4 times the rate of inflation which in turn has made it increasingly difficult to pay for aging or unhealthy prisoners. For each state “ ..the court balances the individual's interest against the state's interest, including cost...” (Wright,1997, pg 20). These balances to the state are only in regards to discipline or security not monetary expenditures. All of this amounts to the fact that prisoners can get a free organ transplant paid for by the state but are either rejected or outright banned from giving much needed organs back to the population. If we accept the resolution to receive the organs of death row inmates and even those that willingly pass it down, the gap between those that are in need and what is available can become even a little bit smaller.

China has declared that the collection of organs from prisoners that have either given consent or who’s body has not been claimed as ethical. Based on the journal of Whitney Hinkle, “China’s procurement of organs from executed prisoners is motivated by greed”(pg 4). An operation that was intended to save lives has instead become a money making business.  While harvesting around 20,000-30,000 organs from their prisoners they still charge around $30,000 for each organ. Placing the possibility of receiving a new organ well out of the reach of the general population, which is a problem that was supposed to be solved with the increase of available organs. This means that even though there is an increased amount of organs to go around, it might still be impossible to get it if it remains unaffordable.With medicine conducted as a business model here in the U.S already it would not be an impossible thought that the same results would occur here.

Currently an organ transplant in the U.S can cost well over $250,000 because of the added costs such as the operation, medicine, rehab, and hospital stay. Kenneth J. Arrow dives into the medical model of hospitals and how they have grown in the U.S. Since hospitals are privately owned they must make a profit in order to keep running. They must staff their hospitals with capable doctors and nurses, who in turn accrued large debts to become qualified in a difficult field. Paying them the large salaries that are associated with the profession, on top of supplies,equipment, and property. Arrow, who studies the economics of the medical industry addresses this as, “Problems associated with increasing returns play some role in allocation of resources in the medical field...”(Arrow, Oct 1, 2001, pg 16) . This privatization creates a greater concern over keeping the hospital running instead of assisting patients. Which creates the question, even if there are more organs available for use, would the general population be able to afford it?

The costs of housing these inmates is a concern in and of itself based upon the findings of Paul W. Keve. Currently all prisoners on death row can appeal their case and if taken under consideration can take years to be resolved.  “Those who are finally executed stay there an average of 6 to 8 years, while those not executed often wait much longer”(Keve, 1994 pg 5). The prolonged stay incurs costs to keep them detained, fed, clothed and any other necessities to keep them alive. In 1989 Indiana determined it can save up to $5 million annually by abolishing the death penalty. Keeping prisoners on death row and eventually executing them is costing states millions.

Many of these problems however stem from a problematic system within government that can be corrected. They are issues that if corrected can only strengthen the aid that comes from the collection of life saving organs that would have otherwise been lost. Each one of those 2,816 donors can potentially save up to 8 lives as well as improve the lives of nearly 50 others. Despite having that many people in need we are still currently throwing away a potential 22,528 critically important organs. Unlike in China we have agencies that regulate our medical practices such as the Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Health and Human Services. These agencies can regulate prices and quality of the organs in order to avoid any potential mishaps. For typical organ donors only 3 in 1,000 die in a manner that allows their organs to be available for donation. We have the ability to end to add hundreds more in a sterile and medically safe environment, why throw it away?

References

rocon.org(2012,  September 12) 41 capital offenses, retrieved from
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004927.

Finger Lakes Donor Recovery Network, Frequently asked questions retrieved from http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/frequently-asked-questions/ 

United Network for Organ Sharing (March 7, 2018) Data, Retrieved from https://unos.org/data/

Hinkle, W. (2002). Giving Until It Hurts: Prisoners Are Not the Answer to the National Organ Shortage. Ind. L. Rev., 35, 593-1583.

Arrow, K. J. (2001). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care (American economic review, 1963). Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law,26(5), 851-883.

Keve, P. W. (1992). The Costliest Punishment-A Corrections Administrator Contemplates the Death Penalty. Fed. Probation, 56, 11.

Criterion, C. (2005). Report of a National Conference on Donation after Cardiac Death. American Journal of Transplantation, 6, 281-291.

Douglas, K. (2004). Prison Inmates Are Constitutionally Entitled to Organ Transplants-So Now What. . Louis ULJ, 49, 539.

Wright, J. (1997). Medically Necessary Organ Transplants for Prisoners: Who is Responsible for Payment. BCL Rev., 39, 1251.

Pfizer blocks drugs from being used in lethal injections Ralph Ellis - https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/health/pfizer-death-penalty-drugs/index.html