Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Organ Donors Behind Bars
Utah recently became the first state to explicitly permit general prisoners – not death-row inmates – to donate their organs if they die while incarcerated. Should more states have laws like this? Should prisoners be allowed to make live donations to people other than family members? And with nearly 118,000 people in the U.S. waiting for hearts, kidneys, livers and other life-saving transplants, why not include death-row inmates?
* explicitly = 분명(명쾌)하게/ death-row inmate = 사형수/ incarcerate = 감금(투옥)하다/ life-saving = 목숨을 구할 

 재소자들이 식구외에 다른 사람들에게 살아 있는 동안 (장기) 기증을 하는 것이 허용되어야만 하나요? 

1. The Incarcerated Are Too Vulnerable to Consent
Despite rules that organ donations should not affect prisoner conditions, inmates will believe otherwise. Free consent is not truly possible under coercive conditions.
 
2. Let Those of Us in Prison Give Life to Others
The reasons that people cite for not allowing prisoners to donate organs are careless exaggerations that have become obsolete because of medical advancement.
 
3. We Must Draw the Line on Death-Row Inmates
As surgeons, we must avoid conflicts of interest and consistently say, “No, thank you” to organ donation from a prisoner who has been executed.
 
4. Let Prisoners Donate Their Organs
If healthy inmates are sincerely motivated to donate, fully educated about the risks and receive no special treatment in return, how are they not acting voluntarily?
 
5. With the Right Safeguards, the Utah Law Is Fine
One huge concern: this new law appears to leave open the possibility that death-row inmates could request to be executed by removal of their vital organs.
 
6. It’s Better to Focus on Other Donor Initiatives
Numerous concerns are raised when prisoners wish to donate to strangers, including whether they have access to appropriate medical care after the surgery.

Sample Essay

The Incarcerated Are Too Vulnerable to Consent

At first glance, why wouldn’t society want to allow prisoners to voluntarily donate organs? It seems like it is a win-win: the prisoner can exercise his or her choice (some would say “right”) to save a life, while society wins by reducing the scarcity of life-saving organs. But what seems like a win-win is unethical and unbefitting a democracy.

I have talked with many prisoners and seen the conditions in which they exist. Prisoners’ lives are determined almost completely by their keepers, and they will do almost anything to make their lives better, in the hopes of less isolation, better conditions and even parole. Despite rules that organ donations should not affect prisoner conditions, they will believe otherwise. Free consent is not truly possible under coercive conditions.

Beyond the inherently coercive environment, many prisoners are mentally ill, poor and uneducated – and some are very young – rendering them incapable of giving informed consent. While in prison, they face despair and loneliness— exacerbating their emotional distress. As a confined population, prisoners could be “educated,” even persuaded or enticed, by wardens and the state to donate their organs.

Beyond the problems of subtle coercion or inducement, it also may be unsafe to use prisoners for organ donation because they have much higher rates of infection from H.I.V. and hepatitis than the general population. Although screening tests are good, they are not perfect, and confirmatory tests can be expensive. Transplant recipients, therefore, are placed at increased risk of contracting serious diseases — another reason to be cautious about prisoner donations.

Prisoners awaiting death are even more susceptible to exploitation, and their desperation provides a greater inducement to donate. It would place the medical profession in the unethical position of harvesting organs from executed prisoners. What's more, the form of execution would have to be modified to preserve organs, keeping them in tact and healthy.

There are other ways to solve the donor shortage within the general population. The United Kingdom, for example, requires driver license applicants to answer a question about organ donation. It would even be possible to have an “opt out” process, with drivers automatically agreeing to donations unless they specifically refuse. In a civilized society, it is preferable to encourage the entire population to exercise their civic duties, rather than rely on the vulnerable and confined.