Kidneys and Parole
Medical ethicists are up in arms because Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has brokered a deal with inmates Gladys and Jamie Scott: They go free if Gladys gives Jamie her kidney.
On Thursday, the governor signed an order that suspended the Scott sisters' life sentences as long as Gladys, 36, who is healthy, donates her kidney to Jamie, 38, who has been on dialysis. The women have been imprisoned for the past 16 years on charges of masterminding an armed robbery.
"As soon as the governor began throwing around commutation -- getting out of her prison sentence -- he began to undercut the ethical framework," said Dr. Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "He has now put the sisters' donation in jeopardy because the parole is absolutely a payment, which is against the law. It would be considered pressure or coercion."
Now, I'd understand objecting to a deal in which an inmate was offered release in exchange for giving a kidney to a complete stranger--although I'd say, if he wants to, why not? Isn't that a much more meaningful way to repay one's debt to society than languishing at taxpayer expense in a prison?
But objecting to a deal in which an inmate wants to give her sister her kidney? Apparently, if Jamie does not get the kidney, she will die. It's obviously far more cruel and unusual to prevent Gladys from donating her kidney--and prevent her from saving her sister's life--than to permit it, wouldn't you say?
Am I missing something? Or are the medical ethicists out of their minds?
- Comment (84)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Whose kidney is it??? The states?? Medical ethics is a dicey area, made even more precarious by turf conscious bureaucrats. Go ahead and off your offspring, that's your right. But, give your sister a kidney? Hence freedom from languishing in prison, here we have a problem?
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
The medical ethicists may be right on the law but wrong on the ethics. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have it right and they argue there should be no prohibition on people selling their organs, especially kidneys since it appears that humans can exist on one healthy kidney as well as two. If it were legal to sell them I suppose it would be legal to barter them in exchange for something other than money, such as commutation of a prison sentence.
There is no sensible argument for the morality of current law, so if law follows morality it should be changed forthwith. To liberals I say, “Gee if it saved just one life wouldn’t it be worth it?"
It would actually save many lives by making more organs available for transplant.
Dec '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
"Am I missing something? Or are the medical ethicists out of their minds? "
I'm not exactly certain what Dr. Caplan's complaint is in this case. It appears his main issue is that because the organ will be donated as a kind of restitution, then the act takes on a compulsory form. Coercion seems a sticking-point to Mr. Caplan as exemplified in this article he wrote concerning eugenics. He holds no ethical complaint with it as long as it is under the guise of individual choice; disregard nature, morals and God mind you. Medical ethicists and public health types in general always have creeped me out.
Dec '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
The reason it is illegal to sell an organ is we want to avoid a situation where the wealthy get preferential access to available organs for transplant. And it isn't just a matter of equal access, either. It is also a matter of attempting to most productively deploy limited resources. Does it seem appropriate, for example, that a wealthy alcoholic with little resolve to quit drinking have easier access to a liver than a working Joe with a liver problem that is not a result of lifestyle decisions?
Kidneys do seem different. But we have the same problem, really. Is it appropriate that wealthy people never have to worry about selling a kidney to pay rent, but a working class person has to negotiate potential exploitation? "No, I won't train you to do a job an H1B can do for 20% less, but I will harvest your organs."
I think it is a good thing that one of the benefits of being a citizen in good standing of the USA is equal access to organs for transplant from your brother and sister citizens. We can maintain that equal access without having the State imperiously decide where they go.
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
"The reason it is illegal to sell an organ is we want to avoid a situation where the wealthy get preferential access to available organs for transplant."
Oh, I get it. The present system lets people who need organ transplants die because there aren’t enough organs, but that’s OK because it helps the liberals' war against "the rich.”
Why can’t you libs understand that if one person has more money than some other person that gives him preferential access to everything. It’s reality, and it’s not optional.
It’s also reality that the United States is the most generous and charitable country the world have ever known and almost no one in this country is or ever has been denied life saving health care for lack of money. Those nasty “rich people’ you despise are just the ones who, with their charitable giving, would make sure no poor person who needed an organ would fail to get one if it were available and the only obstacle were money.
Sep '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
And Steve Jobs got his liver how? Public scholar Virginia Postrel, who donated a kidney to AEI psychiatrist Sally Satel (both of whom favor allowing donors to be paid), noted something in an interview that I find very compelling: everyone involved in performing the transplant is being paid—except for the donor.
Jul '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
I just don't understand why Governor Barbour got involved in this in the first place.
If the one sister wished to donate her kidney, fine. If not, that's her right. But for the Governor to mix it all up with a commutation of their sentences isn't justice, it's manipulation.
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Whether this whole thing is or should be legal is a question for someone else. I'll just say it's weird. I agree with Kenneth.
Oct '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Kenneth: I just don't understand why Governor Barbour got involved in this in the first place.
If the one sister wished to donate her kidney, fine. If not, that's her right. But for the Governor to mix it all up with a commutation of their sentences isn't justice, it's manipulation. · Jan 1 at 9:37am
Gee Kenneth, perhaps the very compulsory event called prison might be characterized as manipulation. Barbour is guilty of offering a reason to do an otherwise good deed. It's anybody's guess as to whether the kidney transaction would have otherwise gone forward. On the other hand, a prisoner who committed a week of his time towards supervised flood relief would be rewarded with a reduction in time, but that isn't manipulation? Isn't the real word we are discussing called incentive?
May '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Is this an excellent subject for disucssion.
Personally, I think Dr. Caplan is a dunce par excellence. Coercion is synonymous with duress; its physical contact or danger that obstructs or threatens to obstruct an individual's civil liberties. Thus, how does Barbour's actions qualify as coercion? His is offering a conditional release, a choice. If the Glady gives Jamie her kidney, then both will be released. The giving of the kidney is a sufficient condition for their release.
Furthermore, the length of their sentence is shockingly inappropriate and has been criticized.
The situation is made worse by federal organ exchange laws which murder more Americans than acts of terrorism.
May '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
The only person who doesn't make a buck on organ donation is the organ donor.
Jul '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
RAYCON
Kenneth: I just don't understand why Governor Barbour got involved in this in the first place.
If the one sister wished to donate her kidney, fine. If not, that's her right. But for the Governor to mix it all up with a commutation of their sentences isn't justice, it's manipulation. · Jan 1 at 9:37am
Gee Kenneth, perhaps the very compulsory event called prison might be characterized as manipulation. Barbour is guilty of offering a reason to do an otherwise good deed.
No, seriously, I just do not understand why he would get involved at all. Whether one sister donates a kidney to another is not normally within the purview of a Governor. Just because he has it in his power to induce the woman to donate the kidney is no reason to do so.
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Here is Haley Barbour’s statement from December 29, 2010:
“To date, the sisters have served 16 years of their sentences and are eligible for parole in 2014. Jamie Scott requires regular dialysis, and her sister has offered to donate one of her kidneys to her. The Mississippi Department of Corrections believes the sisters no longer pose a threat to society. Their incarceration is no longer necessary for public safety or rehabilitation, and Jamie Scott’s medical condition creates a substantial cost to the State of Mississippi.
"The Mississippi Parole Board reviewed the sisters’ request for a pardon and recommended that I neither pardon them, nor commute their sentence. At my request, the Parole Board subsequently reviewed whether the sisters should be granted an indefinite suspension of sentence, which is tantamount to parole, and have concurred with my decision to suspend their sentences indefinitely."
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
The Scott sister’s sentence of double life terms has been criticized as too harsh all along. No one was injured in the armed robbery and there is apparently some evidence that perjured testimony of one of the three teenagers involved guaranteed their conviction. Whether that is valid or not will probably never be known. No appellate court has so far found reason to give them a new trial.
There was little money obtained by the robbers and that has been offered as justification that their sentence was too harsh, but that’s wholly irrelevant and Governor Barbour is not giving that any weight at all.
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
I wonder if there will be a catch 22 in this? Will the kidney transplant take place first and the suspension of sentence second? If the sisters are released first and the kidney transplant never takes place somebody will have egg on their face.
On the other hand, Barbour’s statement shows that he thinks they deserve to be released anyway, and whether the promise to donate a kidney is kept or broken will be on them.
Edited on Jan 1, 2011 at 10:45amMay '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
TeeJaw : "The reason it is illegal to sell an organ is we want to avoid a situation where the wealthy get preferential access to available organs for transplant."
Oh, I get it. The present system lets people who need organ transplants die because there aren’t enough organs, but that’s OK because it helps the liberals' war against "the rich.”
Why can’t you libs understand that if one person has more money than some other person that gives him preferential access to everything. It’s reality, and it’s not optional.
You'll be hard pressed to stumble upon a liberal here.
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
That’s what the free market does best.
Nov '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Michael Labeit
You'll be hard pressed to stumble upon a liberal here. · Jan 1 at 10:45am
Okay, I take it back. I shouldn’t have called KarlUB a liberal. It is a rather nasty thing to call someone.
May '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
It seems to me that the only ethically challenged individual involved is the "donor" sister, who seems to have said that she won't do the donation to save her sister's life unless she is released.
I have no problem with the Governor agreeing to the deal.
I would have no problem if the Governor thought up the idea and brokered the deal.
I also would have no problem if the Governor just said to the sisters that if the transplant doesn't happen, they both serve every day of the original sentences.
I also would have no problem if the Governor paroled the sick sister to eliminate the cost of her care and denied any sentence reduction or parole for the other sister because she wouldn't give the kidney.
May '10
Re: Kidneys and Parole
Leslie Watkins
And Steve Jobs got his liver how? Public scholar Virginia Postrel, who donated a kidney to AEI psychiatrist Sally Satel (both of whom favor allowing donors to be paid), noted something in an interview that I find very compelling: everyone involved in performing the transplant is being paid—except for the donor. · Jan 1 at 9:33am
I think the best argument against the sale of organs is that to commodify human flesh is take a big step down a very slippery ethical slope.