This has to be satire, right?
Honestly, that was my assumption. I was surprised by the reaction the post got.
Are you trolling?
Granted, few prisoners would probably be eligible for organ donation anyway, due to hepatitis, HIV, or their own poor health, often due to substance abuse, BUT it’s already unethical (IIRC per the Geneva Convention) to use prisoners as medical research subjects unless the prisoner would directly benefit from it.
This is disgusting.
Nope. If it were satire, I would have included, oh, let’s say, an actual SIGN that it was satire. For example, calling it “a modest proposal,” or something like that.
Anybody who has studied economic history knows that the free market is much better at allocating scarce resources than the government is.
Right, just look at all the profit that is made off of prisons. This could be a whole new profit center for our capitalist based justice system!
Remember, justice, too, is better when allocated by the free market.*
*and yes, that was satire.
Actually, “A Gift from Earth” was the one with synthetic lab-grown organs, which ended the age of horror of organ harvesting for parking tickets.
In fact, for blood donation, even just having ever been in jail or prison for more than a few days is itself a disqualifier, because there’s too much risk of those other things.
You do know who runs most of the prisons, right? Nothing like the invisible hand of the freemarket Federal Bureau of Prisons setting the basic wage at $0.12-0.40 an hour, or all the way up to $0.23-1.15 and hour for those making police and military uniforms.
Don’t worry, I’m sure the government will offer competitive pricing to inmates for their organs compared to what the free market has decided the price is. Oh wait, selling organs on the free market is a crime, quite the conundrum there.
You mean, the way the free market efficiently allocated the scarce resource of human labor in the Atlantic slave trade?
The “scarce resource” you’re talking about allocating is people.
Didn’t we fight a war about that back in the mid 19th century?
Hell, we’re still fighting that war.
Trusting an unholy combination of the state and soulless corporations to distribute organs and tissues of the condemned isn’t really a compelling argument for free market efficiencies.
Not sure what the worry is. It’s not like a for profit prison would buy a judge or two to keep the raw materials flowing into the system.
I can see healthier prisoners being isolated from the rest of the population to both keep them healthy and to make them want to get out sooner. Of course, after the donation, when they are weak and on insufficient pain medication they would be thrown back into the general population.
@Qadgop_the_Mercotan, we’re calling you for your opinion, although I think we can all guess what it is, and it’s that you are incredibly opposed to it.
You must be an atheist, to equate “person” with “dead body parts.” Nobody who believes in any sort of after-life would do that.
What dead body parts? Donating a kidney or bone marrow from a living prisoner to a living patient.
Also the free market, I think you need to research your history on some of the most free market conditions the world has ever known to see if it really is better at allocating scarce resources, and better for who?
The two most clear counter examples to this claim are the American health care system, and the US prison industrial complex.
So I’m sure letting prisons harvest organs is going to go great.
Capitalism punishment, amirite?
Until we develop the ability to grow organs, there will always be far more demand than supply of organs. The “free market” solution would be to bid up the organs and they go to the highest bidder. Fortunately, while there certainly does seem to be some bias (and possibly corruption) in the organ transplant registry, it is not based on ability to outbid others.
Anyway, what happens when they pass this, and all the inmates who are willing and able to donate a spare kidney, part of their liver, or a bit of bone marrow have done so, and yet, there is still unmet demand. Do we change it from voluntary to mandatory? And even then, there will not be enough, so do we find more crimes that will make one “eligible” for such a deal?
I read the aforementioned Niven stories at a young enough age that it was the first time I came across the concept of harvesting criminals for organs, so when I came across it in the real world for the first time, I was already well against it. It seems a great idea at first, let the murderer save more lives than he ended when he is condemned to death. But once you’ve stepped down that road at all, it’s easy, far to easy, to take the next step, and the next, until we’re executing jay walkers so that Elon Musk can have a fresh set of lungs.
The way to deal with organ shortage is to be a donor, and encourage others to be donors as well. Even though I’m a donor, my plan is to live long enough that my organs are of no use to anyone, but plans get interrupted, and at least someone else could benefit from my misfortune, if it comes to that.
Well, until we can grow them ourselves, either in a petri dish or in a genetically modified pig.
I seriously doubt this bill will go anywhere, but it is disturbing that it was proposed. Even more disturbing that there was anyone who thought it was a good idea.