My objection is not necessarily that she caused her illness, but that she’s getting preferential treatment because she’s incarcerated.
You’re right when you say we can’t limit care to those who were smart or lucky enough to preserve their health. People do stupid things all of the time, which either result in injury or health problems. There’s no need to “punish” them by denying them care . . . if they can afford it, that is. If they’re poor, it matters little whether the illness is caused by organic means or was self-inflicted: if they can’t pay for transplants, they’re doomed.
I agree that the person who’s most severely ill should be first in line for an available organ, regardless of the cause. Organs are not one-size-fits-all. Assuming an organ becomes available, there’s a substantial chance that it won’t be a match. If a match is found, the person who is most ill should get the organ, even if another person was on the waiting list for a longer period of time.
Ah, but that results in a lot of transplant organs going into people who are very unlikely to survive the surgical procedure. Why not transplant it into someone who is less ill but still needs a transplant, who’s far more likely to get many years of use out of the organ?
Past a certain point in the illness a transplant may be the only hope. But it becomes a very slim hope indeed.
This kind of thing makes me want to reconsider my current status as an organ donor.
I’m not happy about just turning my organs over to a board that evaluates the uses of my organs in a vaccum to any other considerations than medical necessity.
If something happens to me I want my organs to be used wisely and in a fashion that will do the greatest good. The way the boards that decide who gets what and refuse to make ethical value judgements bothers me.
Refusing to make the value judgement is in fact making a value judgement.
I think someone that needs a new organ because they have abused their body is less deserving than someone who’s organs are failing through no fault of their own.
I think a person’s value and contribution to others’ lives also should dictate precedence. Being the parent or custodian of a minor, or a a family’s breadwinner or a contributing member of society increases ones worthiness in my eyes.
A combination of the desperation of need combined with the amount of good, the difference in the quality and quantity of life that a transplant could provide is another important criteria.
I think that refusing to make these kinds of value judgements is worse than doing your best and occasionally making them badly.
I wish there were an alternate way that I could donate my organs in the event of my death so that merit would be a factor.
I couldn’t agree more. The main problem I have is the fact that, because she is incarcerated she may be able to receive some kind of medical treatment she likely would not have been able to get without her having been arrested, tried, and convicted of a serious crime. I’m all for “equal” treatment and not discriminating against people (such as denying transplants) because of their incarcerated status. But that certainly shouldn’t grant anyone extra benefits.
This runs the risk of turning every poor person who can’t afford a needed life saving operation into a criminal so they can go to prison and get treatment. Who wouldn’t be willing to serve 5, 10, or even 20 years in prison if it was the only way for them to survive? Many prisons are already dangerously overcrowded, what happens when they get an incoming tidal wave of desperate medical refugees?
realhoops, the lady wasn’t granted extra benefits.
she’ll be evaluated and placed on the list when it’s appropriate.
her position will depend on her condition.
to base a medical system on the ability to pay, when it is patently obvious that the sickest people cannot work is ludicrous.
BTW, it’s not just organs that are in short supply, name any piece of medical equipment, and i can guarantee you that the medical staff would like more of them.
they’d like more beds, more operating theatres, more doctors, more nurses, more drugs.
an organ transplant is obvious as it’s the last ditch attempt to save a life, but there are lots of other situations where triage has to be done in order to prioritise scarce resouces.
The “you did it to yourself” cuts both ways. What about the type-A businessperson who has a heart attack? What about the olympic runner that needs knee surgery? Do these people deserve care because they got sick/hurt doing something we approve of, or do they get left out because they are ultimately at fault? It’s already bad enough that we decide who lives and who dies based on ability to pay. Do we really need to add “societal worth” in the mix? A doctor’s job is to heal sick bodies, not to dole out life and death based on sin or lack thereof.
And likewise, a prison’s job is to take dangerous people out of society, not to make people dead as soon as possible. When a person is sentenced to life, they are not sentenced to death or anal rape or anything other than their sentence. That is why we have guards to keep violence under control and that is why we provide for the health and safety of prisoners.
The problem, however, is that if she is evaluated and is placed on the list and the time comes for her to actually receive the transplant, she does not have to pay for the procedure. I consider this an “extra benefit” in the sense that she would not be able to pay, but would still receive the procedure; non-incarcerated individuals who cannot pay would not be allowed to receive the procedure. And in this particular case it is likely that she would be unable to pay regardless of whether she is incarcerated or not – her chosen field of work prior to incarceration is not, AFAIK, one in which health insurance is the norm. In this sense the fact that she is incarcerated appears to be allowing her (if she is placed on the list and eventually gets to the top of the list) to have a procedure that she could never have paid for while others who also cannot pay are denied the procedure, in a sense because they are law-abiding members of society.
It may be that “to base a medical system on the ability to pay, when it is patently obvious that the sickest people cannot work is ludicrous.” The bottom line is that in this country the medical system is based on the ability to pay; you either have to be able to afford these things or have insurance that will cover them. This is especially true with things like organ transplants. While its true that you may be able to go to public hospitals and receive emergency treatment even if you can’t pay, I wager you aren’t going to get a heart transplant unless somebody is paying for it. That’s the way it is, ludicrous or not.
I think I pretty much agree with what you have said, and I agree that incarceration should not make a person ineligible for a transplant or any other necessary medical procedure. Again, my problem is with the notion that the State picks up the tab for this and the resultant situation where two equally situation people (in terms of finances, health, need, etc.) are not treated equally with regard to being able to get a transplant: the person convicted of murder and serving a life sentence gets the precious transplant, the poor woman who has been convicted of no crime and is scraping to get by week to week is denied the transplant. Neither can afford the transplant, but since the first woman is incarcerated the State will pay for it?
That’s the problem I have. What do you think of this aspect of the problem?