But they COULD specify otherwise and then people would leave their corpses alone. I'm sure you're right, they would kick up a fuss. But hopefully at some point their influence will diminish to the point where we can say, "Hey, STFU."
It might happen at some point, but sadly I think that it's decades away if ever. I just don't see that many people changing their opinions about death that quickly.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The fact it might get passed doesn't mean it deserves to, Shinto. That's a huge cop-out. You can't just magically wave away all the moral issues and the huge potential for abuse based on the fact that a majority of lawmakers already have.
Or see it this way. Would you automatically support a law to round up all the illegal Mexican immigrants and harvest them for organs if it looked like it had a good chance of passing? After all, we need the organs, and medical research isn't moving fast enough, and these people chose to break the law and come here illegally, and most importantly the law would pass and have public support. Is that all you need to get behind it?
The proposal approved by the Senate Corrections and Penology Subcommittee would set up a volunteer donor program in prisons to teach inmates about the need for donors. But lawmakers want legal advice before acting on a bill that would shave up to 180 days off a prison sentence for inmates who donate.
For all your talk on cop-outs and logical fallacies you sure love throwing up strawmen of your own, don't you?
You seriously don't see the difference between setting up a voluntary organ-for-reduced-sentance program and harvesting people's organs against their will?
God on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The fact it might get passed doesn't mean it deserves to, Shinto. That's a huge cop-out. You can't just magically wave away all the moral issues and the huge potential for abuse based on the fact that a majority of lawmakers already have.
Or see it this way. Would you automatically support a law to round up all the illegal Mexican immigrants and harvest them for organs if it looked like it had a good chance of passing? After all, we need the organs, and medical research isn't moving fast enough, and these people chose to break the law and come here illegally, and most importantly the law would pass and have public support. Is that all you need to get behind it?
The proposal approved by the Senate Corrections and Penology Subcommittee would set up a volunteer donor program in prisons to teach inmates about the need for donors. But lawmakers want legal advice before acting on a bill that would shave up to 180 days off a prison sentence for inmates who donate.
For all your talk on cop-outs and logical fallacies you sure love throwing up strawmen of your own, don't you?
You seriously don't see the difference between setting up a voluntary organ-for-reduced-sentance program and harvesting people's organs against their will?
I don't get your point, so why don't you just spell it out for me.
Well, you could read the thread, but the basic problem is that it encourages us to have more prisoners, so we have a greater organ donation pool, for starters. There's also the whole ambiguous issue of exactly how voluntary it would be, because they're in fucking prison.
I don't get your point, so why don't you just spell it out for me.
When you are in prison, you generally want to get out of prison as quickly as possible. The bill creates an incentive to donate an organ. By definition, a volunteer is motivated mostly by wanting to help the community and does not expect payment. Most of these prisoners will be donating their organs because they want to get out of prison earlier. They are not volunteers.
I don't get your point, so why don't you just spell it out for me.
Well, you could read the thread, but the basic problem is that it encourages us to have more prisoners, so we have a greater organ donation pool, for starters. There's also the whole ambiguous issue of exactly how voluntary it would be, because they're in fucking prison.
I'm going to go with Shinto on this one and say that it seems foolish to think that this law would create such a demand for prisoners (this phrase being ridiculous in and of itself) that our society would put more people in to make the donation pool bigger.
I do wonder how many inmates would go through with it. Like was mentioned earlier, we can throw out everyone with AIDS, hepatitis, and other stuff I don't know about that would make them ineligible. Then I would think they would need to be screened to see if there is a person in need that is compatible with their organ for rejection purposes. And on top of that, there's the possibility that a lot people just value x organ over 6 months of their time.
I don't understand your point about asking how voluntary it would be because they're in prison. Would the guard coerce them into doing it? Do you think that a significant number of people who would do it would regret it once they're out?
I think both problems can be softened with independant oversight. I wonder if it's been considered to have some non-governmental organization be part of the lengthy education/screening process.
EDIT- titmouse, of course they'd still be volunteers. I don't want to starve to death, so I go to work and earn a paycheck. I go to work because I want to have food and a place to live. Are you saying that my going to work isn't voluntary?
I don't want to starve to death, so I go to work and earn a paycheck. I go to work because I want to have food and a place to live. Are you saying that my going to work isn't voluntary?
By your own definition, you go to work because the consequence of not going to work is death.
That's an unconventional definition of voluntary to say the least.
I don't want to starve to death, so I go to work and earn a paycheck. I go to work because I want to have food and a place to live. Are you saying that my going to work isn't voluntary?
By your own definition, you go to work because the consequence of not going to work is death.
That's an unconventional definition of voluntary to say the least.
Right, the consequence of not having any money is that I starve to death.
And the consequence of not donating a kidney is that you stay in jail 6 months longer.
If one thinks that the result of the second is bad, I would think they'd find the first even worse. They might say that the desire to not be in jail is so high that they'll do anything to get out of it, like get rid of one of their kidneys. This is unacceptable, so we shouldn't let them get rid of one of their kidneys.
Now run that through with working and see how silly it is.
I don't want to starve to death, so I go to work and earn a paycheck. I go to work because I want to have food and a place to live. Are you saying that my going to work isn't voluntary?
By your own definition, you go to work because the consequence of not going to work is death.
That's an unconventional definition of voluntary to say the least.
Right, the consequence of not having any money is that I starve to death.
And the consequence of not donating a kidney is that you stay in jail 6 months longer.
If one thinks that the result of the second is bad, I would think they'd find the first even worse. They might say that the desire to not be in jail is so high that they'll do anything to get out of it, like get rid of one of their kidneys. This is unacceptable, so we shouldn't let them get rid of one of their kidneys.
Now run that through with working and see how silly it is.
You ahve effectively summed up my thoughts on the majority of arguements floating around this debate.
I still don't see the bill working to a very good end.
Say it passes, over-rides the previous statute, and it's made known to the general public. I wonder how many non-felons would still be altruistic enough to donate their organs for free. Now donating an organ isn't an invaluable gift anymore; there's an assigned legal value: six months worth of prison time. Some would-be donors might drop because now their previously invaluable gift is cheapened. Those who would still donate are now faced with an inequity: whereas prisoners are given compensation for the same deed, they are not. Given the amount of distaste and bias against felons, this may be interpreted as being soft on crime or whatever.
If the previous altruistic supply of around 5,000 donors shrinks enough then the prisoner supply has to compensate and you lose whatever benefits the bill sought to have. 6 months isn't a lot for a kidney and it might fall beneath the discontinuous supply curve, leading to a similar shortage. While I don't think it likely we'd suddenly start increasing the supply of prisoners, what is more likely are abuses by correction staff and guards to increase more "volunteers" desperate enough to get out of prison.
This whole thing has reminded me why I have not filled out an organ donor card yet. What would my body best be used for: donating organs or donating it to science? On one hand, people need organs; on the other hand, diseases need to be cured and doctors need to be trained to save people's lives. Does anyone know which is needed more?
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I think they should pass a law saying that unless you specifically register as a non-organ-donor, you will be assumed to be an organ donor upon your death. In that scenario, you don't have a group of desparate people making decisions that can potentially screw them up medically years later. And it's not like dead people care what will happen to their organs.
That would work if people had rational views about their bodies after death. But the reality is that a lot of people still think of stuff that happens to their corpse is happening to them, and opt for a burial. Also, many religious people would scream bloody murder if you suggested that their organs be taken unless you specify otherwise.
Personally, I don't think denying people your organs after death is a right you should have, but it would be political suicide to try and get that bill passed.
Lots of jurisdictions have an "opt-out" organ donation program (rather than "opt-in"), or are close to changing to one - such as Britain. Hardly political suicide.
This whole thing has reminded me why I have not filled out an organ donor card yet. What would my body best be used for: donating organs or donating it to science? On one hand, people need organs; on the other hand, diseases need to be cured and doctors need to be trained to save people's lives. Does anyone know which is needed more?
Organs, by far.
Some medical schools don't use cadavers any more.
Edit: let me clarify. There is a shortage of cadavers. However, there's some controversy as to whether having every medical student open up a cadaver actually helps them that much.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Lots of jurisdictions have an "opt-out" organ donation program (rather than "opt-in"), or are close to changing to one - such as Britain. Hardly political suicide.
Really? Wow. I see the huge ignorant railing against stem cell research and I imagine the furor these people could put up over this. Though I think one factor might be that Britain is far more secular than the US.
Also, thanks for the info on organ donation, Feral, I'm going to go fill out that card now.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Lots of jurisdictions have an "opt-out" organ donation program (rather than "opt-in"), or are close to changing to one - such as Britain. Hardly political suicide.
Really? Wow. I see the huge ignorant railing against stem cell research and I imagine the furor these people could put up over this. Though I think one factor might be that Britain is far more secular than the US.
Also, thanks for the info on organ donation, Feral, I'm going to go fill out that card now.
Stem cell research angers everyone who feels that life begins at X point. Concern over organs is limited to people who believe in a specific subset of bodily ressurection. I'm pretty sure it's much less of an issue, even in the US.
I don't know about that i have no problems with donating my organs after death, i just feel it should be presumed that you're going to keep them if not said otherwise.
I think it would be kind of messed up if we assumed "he didn't sign a card take the whole lot i'm sure he won't mind".
I think Cat touched on what has been my issue with this from the get go, which is what stops politicians from ratcheting up prison sentences to encourage donating an organ? Or creating other incentives involving living conditions, visitations, and other sundries that are part and parcel of a prisoner's life. I.E "Donate an organ and live in the nice climate controlled cell by yourself or you're going to 'rat alley'". A little hyperbolic, but you get the point.
Personally I'm reminded of the Saw series of movies, where you put someone in a pretty shitty situation and they have to do something unpleasant to get out of it.
I think Cat touched on what has been my issue with this from the get go, which is what stops politicians from ratcheting up prison sentences to encourage donating an organ?
Because keeping people in jail is fucking expensive?
The only way this argument makes sense is if there's some kind of kickback going to back to the correctional system for each organ donated.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think Cat touched on what has been my issue with this from the get go, which is what stops politicians from ratcheting up prison sentences to encourage donating an organ?
Because keeping people in jail is fucking expensive?
The only way this argument makes sense is if there's some kind of kickback going to back to the correctional system for each organ donated.
From the article, and bolded because you missed it the first time:
Under the proposals, money for medical procedures and any prison guard overtime would be paid by the organ recipient and charitable groups. The state would also decide which inmates could donate.
Under the proposals, money for medical procedures and any prison guard overtime would be paid by the organ recipient and charitable groups. The state would also decide which inmates could donate.
This says that the additional expenses incurred by the donation program would be paid for by charity and the recipient.
That has nothing to do with the fact that it costs around $20,000 per year to house an inmate. If lawmakers were going to start ratcheting up sentences, the correctional system would be spending an extra $20k per inmate per year for those inflated sentences; supposedly for the vague promise that a small fraction of inmates will donate their organs. But wait, the organ donation itself generates no profit for the correctional institution, nor does the organ donation pay for the hypothetical increased sentence length. The organ donation will only (based on the quote above) pay for itself.
If anything, I'd imagine the prison guard unions opposing this program. Why? Because reduced sentences for prisoners means reduced budget for correctional institutions. That's less money for the prison industry.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Lots of jurisdictions have an "opt-out" organ donation program (rather than "opt-in"), or are close to changing to one - such as Britain. Hardly political suicide.
Really? Wow. I see the huge ignorant railing against stem cell research and I imagine the furor these people could put up over this. Though I think one factor might be that Britain is far more secular than the US.
Useful site on the debate in the U.K., with several comparative examples.
Under the proposals, money for medical procedures and any prison guard overtime would be paid by the organ recipient and charitable groups. The state would also decide which inmates could donate.
This says that the additional expenses incurred by the donation program would be paid for by charity and the recipient.
That has nothing to do with the fact that it costs around $20,000 per year to house an inmate. If lawmakers were going to start ratcheting up sentences, the correctional system would be spending an extra $20k per inmate per year for those inflated sentences; supposedly for the vague promise that a small fraction of inmates will donate their organs. But wait, the organ donation itself generates no profit for the correctional institution, nor does the organ donation pay for the hypothetical increased sentence length. The organ donation will only (based on the quote above) pay for itself.
If anything, I'd imagine the prison guard unions opposing this program. Why? Because reduced sentences for prisoners means reduced budget for correctional institutions. That's less money for the prison industry.
Ah okay, I read that more as an incentive, not because of the operation and everything that goes along with it.
However, you have to consider the fact that more and more prisons are becoming privatized, so whether or not it costs the taxpayers anything might not be such a big factor here in the future.
Regardless, I think this is a pretty terrible idea.
However, you have to consider the fact that more and more prisons are becoming privatized, so whether or not it costs the taxpayers anything might not be such a big factor here in the future.
Unfortunately the taxpayers still have to pay, only now a not-so-disinterested for-profit third party is the one actually hitting the taxpayers with the bill.
Does that scare anybody else? It scares me.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
However, you have to consider the fact that more and more prisons are becoming privatized, so whether or not it costs the taxpayers anything might not be such a big factor here in the future.
Unfortunately the taxpayers still have to pay, only now a not-so-disinterested for-profit third party is the one actually hitting the taxpayers with the bill.
Does that scare anybody else? It scares me.
Its an ugly situation. Again, what stops this third party from giving special treatment to people who donate, and giving bare bones to those who don't?
Yeah, circles wthin circles, but then again we could just grow the damn things from stem cells instead of opening what seems to be a very messy pandora's box.
Okey, first of all, the people going "omg but if the prisoners don't donate organs people will die", shut the fuck up
Really the only thing I can think of that they can donate is their kidney, maybe some other obscure organ, but I doubt it, and as far as I know you can pretty much live without kidneys, just need some dialisys, sure it's a bitch, but it's not killing you.
The kid who needs a new liver is hardly going to get it from a living inmate, is he?
Something that might actually be ethical, or at worst ethically DEBATABLE would be to have the prisoners subscribe to donating their organs after death and make THAT have some sentance reducing effect, that way you are not milking the desperate.
Also, about organ trade, it's the fact that desperate people will sell their organs to survive, except slowly die, that is sort of horrendous, also the fact that it will be one other "money = life" scenarios that is pretty disturbing, your income should not affect your right to life.
On this actual debate, it's expecitng people who have shown they have poor judgement (read, they are criminal) have good judgement. It's not like they can say, twenty years on "I probably should have stayed six more months" after the have been on dialisys for fifty years. I can think of little that is as permanent as donating your organ, if you chose a lousy partner you can leave them, if you get a crappy job you can quit, or if you punch some guy in the face you go to jail for a while, but after a while, usually before deaht, you get out, and you can apply your new knowledge.
I guess you could always buy a new kidney though? Assuming ofcourse you managed to get a high paying job despite your lack of kidney and criminal record. Whoops, that's almost impossible. nevermind.
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
They might say that the desire to not be in jail is so high that they'll do anything to get out of it, like get rid of one of their kidneys. This is unacceptable, so we shouldn't let them get rid of one of their kidneys.
Now run that through with working and see how silly it is.
This line of argument has come up a few times. I think you're missing the concern that six-months-for-a-kidney is not a fair trade. Prisoners, as a captive population under duress, will probably make the bad trade. We aren't thinking, "Oh no! People in a bad situation will take action to get out!" We're thinking, "Oh no! People in a bad situation will act irrationally to get out, and the government will take advantadge of their strained judgement!"
Does that help?
Also, re: extended prison time, I think the more immediate concern is what someone mentioned earlier, that courts, not politicians, will be assigning longer terms whenever possible in order to compensate for the effects of this law. I think we'd see that, not because of organ greed, but out of righteousness--I mean hell, what's the point of jailing these thugs if they'll just get out six months early? Better give 'em the maximum so it will sting. =|
Why dont we just cut through the bullshit. Anyone with a sentence of longer than 12 months gets all their organs harvested and the leftovers are used to make soilent green.
I mean, these are criminals were talking about here. Right?
Edit: Holy Shit! Ctrl+I puts in the italics flags now!
Wylder on
No sig for you!
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
I've seen three objections to this program so far in the thread, and none are satisfactory.
First Objection: this scheme takes advantage of people who are too uneducated and out of sorts to make a rational decision. Prisoners will wind up trading away something irreplaceably valuable for a few months of freedom, because they don't understand or fully appreciate the long term consequences of losing a kidney.
Response: you may picture a dark room, bare bulbs, and a shady guy with a knife, however, I don't think that has to be the scene. If the concern is merely over the convicts' abilities to make a rational choice, then why not mandate disclaimers, or medical and psychological interviews with neutral third parties? The problem of informed consent is tangential to the program as a whole.
Second Objection: It is impossible to offer real consent from within a prison, regardless of how informed you are. The conditions are so poor that they'll do anything to get out--anything.
Second Response: there are two important points to be made here. Not only is the fact that they'll do anything to get out usually indicative of the fact that it's worth anything to get out (and therefore, offering them the chance to get out earlier is actually quite a boon), but also, if conditions are terrible then that's its own problem, independently of these questions of sentencing.
Third Objection: this offers an incentive for the state to imprison people wantonly, which is unjust and frightening.
Third Response: The economics simply aren't in place for that, as Shinto has pointed out. The prison population is already large enough to meet donation needs, and furthermore, there will be no revenue generated by the donations. No one in the judicial or correctional fields will get any kickbacks from this, and regardless, there is some presumption of competence and integrity in regards to our public system. We can't operate under the assumption that any public endeavor will succumb to corruption: surely, it's wise to avoid enterprises that are inherently vulnerable to corruption, however, as has been said, there's no especially problematic vector in this situation by which we can expect it to go wrong.
Did you just say that we can assume that people involved in running our prisons are even vaguely incorruptible?
Slap yourself across the mouth, you silly pollyanna faggot.
Well, there is an assumption that civil enterprises generally won't succumb to corruption unless there's something in it for someone and rather lax oversight.
So, I don't have a boner for prison guards, no. However, as has been pointed out, they aren't actually being incentivized to drum up donations--there's nothing in if for them. If I were to be presented with a specific way in which we would expect them to act, such that they would both be abusing the intent of the law and profiting from it, then I would be concerned. However, operating from blind faith that they'll find a way seems a bit tinfoil hatty.
The fact it might get passed doesn't mean it deserves to, Shinto. That's a huge cop-out. You can't just magically wave away all the moral issues and the huge potential for abuse based on the fact that a majority of lawmakers already have.
I don't have to wave away anything. 80,000 people dying for lack of an organ is a greater evil than 80,000 people lossing an organ.
I think it is disgusting to sentence those people to death next year because you consider the choice offered to the inmates is ethically grey. And I find it even more disgusting that you and guo seek to excuse yourself from the moral consequences of your choice by advocating ideal solutions that have failed to manifest themselves in reality and trite one liners like "Not doing the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing."
Did you just say that we can assume that people involved in running our prisons are even vaguely incorruptible?
Slap yourself across the mouth, you silly pollyanna faggot.
Well, there is an assumption that civil enterprises generally won't succumb to corruption unless there's something in it for someone and rather lax oversight.
So, I don't have a boner for prison guards, no. However, as has been pointed out, they aren't actually being incentivized to drum up donations--there's nothing in if for them. If I were to be presented with a specific way in which we would expect them to act, such that they would both be abusing the intent of the law and profiting from it, then I would be concerned. However, operating from blind faith that they'll find a way seems a bit tinfoil hatty.
No, you're being too trusting.
This is just like that time we couldn't impliment social security because if politicians controlled old people's retirement money they could force them to vote anyway they chose. Man I'm glad we left that one alone.
The fact it might get passed doesn't mean it deserves to, Shinto. That's a huge cop-out. You can't just magically wave away all the moral issues and the huge potential for abuse based on the fact that a majority of lawmakers already have.
I don't have to wave away anything. 80,000 people dying for lack of an organ is a greater evil than 80,000 people lossing an organ. .
Please read again, those people die because those organs are vital, that means that if you take those organs from prisoners they will die aswell, there might be a few exceptions, but nowhere near 80k.
Stop using irrelevant data
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
The fact it might get passed doesn't mean it deserves to, Shinto. That's a huge cop-out. You can't just magically wave away all the moral issues and the huge potential for abuse based on the fact that a majority of lawmakers already have.
I don't have to wave away anything. 80,000 people dying for lack of an organ is a greater evil than 80,000 people lossing an organ. .
Please read again, those people die because those organs are vital, that means that if you take those organs from prisoners they will die aswell, there might be a few exceptions, but nowhere near 80k.
Stop using irrelevant data
You have two kidneys. You only technically need the one. Unless you, like, have to go more than an hour between pitstops regularly. Among other actual health-complications.
The fact it might get passed doesn't mean it deserves to, Shinto. That's a huge cop-out. You can't just magically wave away all the moral issues and the huge potential for abuse based on the fact that a majority of lawmakers already have.
I don't have to wave away anything. 80,000 people dying for lack of an organ is a greater evil than 80,000 people lossing an organ. .
Please read again, those people die because those organs are vital, that means that if you take those organs from prisoners they will die aswell, there might be a few exceptions, but nowhere near 80k.
Stop using irrelevant data
You have two kidneys. You only technically need the one. Unless you, like, have to go more than an hour between pitstops regularly. Among other actual health-complications.
so 80 000 people die from lack of kidneys each year?
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Posts
It might happen at some point, but sadly I think that it's decades away if ever. I just don't see that many people changing their opinions about death that quickly.
For all your talk on cop-outs and logical fallacies you sure love throwing up strawmen of your own, don't you?
You seriously don't see the difference between setting up a voluntary organ-for-reduced-sentance program and harvesting people's organs against their will?
Hint: They are in fucking prison.
Well, you could read the thread, but the basic problem is that it encourages us to have more prisoners, so we have a greater organ donation pool, for starters. There's also the whole ambiguous issue of exactly how voluntary it would be, because they're in fucking prison.
When you are in prison, you generally want to get out of prison as quickly as possible. The bill creates an incentive to donate an organ. By definition, a volunteer is motivated mostly by wanting to help the community and does not expect payment. Most of these prisoners will be donating their organs because they want to get out of prison earlier. They are not volunteers.
I'm going to go with Shinto on this one and say that it seems foolish to think that this law would create such a demand for prisoners (this phrase being ridiculous in and of itself) that our society would put more people in to make the donation pool bigger.
I do wonder how many inmates would go through with it. Like was mentioned earlier, we can throw out everyone with AIDS, hepatitis, and other stuff I don't know about that would make them ineligible. Then I would think they would need to be screened to see if there is a person in need that is compatible with their organ for rejection purposes. And on top of that, there's the possibility that a lot people just value x organ over 6 months of their time.
I don't understand your point about asking how voluntary it would be because they're in prison. Would the guard coerce them into doing it? Do you think that a significant number of people who would do it would regret it once they're out?
I think both problems can be softened with independant oversight. I wonder if it's been considered to have some non-governmental organization be part of the lengthy education/screening process.
EDIT- titmouse, of course they'd still be volunteers. I don't want to starve to death, so I go to work and earn a paycheck. I go to work because I want to have food and a place to live. Are you saying that my going to work isn't voluntary?
By your own definition, you go to work because the consequence of not going to work is death.
That's an unconventional definition of voluntary to say the least.
Right, the consequence of not having any money is that I starve to death.
And the consequence of not donating a kidney is that you stay in jail 6 months longer.
If one thinks that the result of the second is bad, I would think they'd find the first even worse. They might say that the desire to not be in jail is so high that they'll do anything to get out of it, like get rid of one of their kidneys. This is unacceptable, so we shouldn't let them get rid of one of their kidneys.
Now run that through with working and see how silly it is.
You ahve effectively summed up my thoughts on the majority of arguements floating around this debate.
Not doing the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing.
Say it passes, over-rides the previous statute, and it's made known to the general public. I wonder how many non-felons would still be altruistic enough to donate their organs for free. Now donating an organ isn't an invaluable gift anymore; there's an assigned legal value: six months worth of prison time. Some would-be donors might drop because now their previously invaluable gift is cheapened. Those who would still donate are now faced with an inequity: whereas prisoners are given compensation for the same deed, they are not. Given the amount of distaste and bias against felons, this may be interpreted as being soft on crime or whatever.
If the previous altruistic supply of around 5,000 donors shrinks enough then the prisoner supply has to compensate and you lose whatever benefits the bill sought to have. 6 months isn't a lot for a kidney and it might fall beneath the discontinuous supply curve, leading to a similar shortage. While I don't think it likely we'd suddenly start increasing the supply of prisoners, what is more likely are abuses by correction staff and guards to increase more "volunteers" desperate enough to get out of prison.
Organs, by far.
Some medical schools don't use cadavers any more.
Edit: let me clarify. There is a shortage of cadavers. However, there's some controversy as to whether having every medical student open up a cadaver actually helps them that much.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Really? Wow. I see the huge ignorant railing against stem cell research and I imagine the furor these people could put up over this. Though I think one factor might be that Britain is far more secular than the US.
Also, thanks for the info on organ donation, Feral, I'm going to go fill out that card now.
Stem cell research angers everyone who feels that life begins at X point. Concern over organs is limited to people who believe in a specific subset of bodily ressurection. I'm pretty sure it's much less of an issue, even in the US.
I think it would be kind of messed up if we assumed "he didn't sign a card take the whole lot i'm sure he won't mind".
I feel it's best to err on the side of caution.
Personally I'm reminded of the Saw series of movies, where you put someone in a pretty shitty situation and they have to do something unpleasant to get out of it.
Because keeping people in jail is fucking expensive?
The only way this argument makes sense is if there's some kind of kickback going to back to the correctional system for each organ donated.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
From the article, and bolded because you missed it the first time:
This says that the additional expenses incurred by the donation program would be paid for by charity and the recipient.
That has nothing to do with the fact that it costs around $20,000 per year to house an inmate. If lawmakers were going to start ratcheting up sentences, the correctional system would be spending an extra $20k per inmate per year for those inflated sentences; supposedly for the vague promise that a small fraction of inmates will donate their organs. But wait, the organ donation itself generates no profit for the correctional institution, nor does the organ donation pay for the hypothetical increased sentence length. The organ donation will only (based on the quote above) pay for itself.
If anything, I'd imagine the prison guard unions opposing this program. Why? Because reduced sentences for prisoners means reduced budget for correctional institutions. That's less money for the prison industry.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
BBC - Organ Donation Fact files
Ah okay, I read that more as an incentive, not because of the operation and everything that goes along with it.
However, you have to consider the fact that more and more prisons are becoming privatized, so whether or not it costs the taxpayers anything might not be such a big factor here in the future.
Regardless, I think this is a pretty terrible idea.
Unfortunately the taxpayers still have to pay, only now a not-so-disinterested for-profit third party is the one actually hitting the taxpayers with the bill.
Does that scare anybody else? It scares me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Its an ugly situation. Again, what stops this third party from giving special treatment to people who donate, and giving bare bones to those who don't?
Yeah, circles wthin circles, but then again we could just grow the damn things from stem cells instead of opening what seems to be a very messy pandora's box.
Really the only thing I can think of that they can donate is their kidney, maybe some other obscure organ, but I doubt it, and as far as I know you can pretty much live without kidneys, just need some dialisys, sure it's a bitch, but it's not killing you.
The kid who needs a new liver is hardly going to get it from a living inmate, is he?
Something that might actually be ethical, or at worst ethically DEBATABLE would be to have the prisoners subscribe to donating their organs after death and make THAT have some sentance reducing effect, that way you are not milking the desperate.
Also, about organ trade, it's the fact that desperate people will sell their organs to survive, except slowly die, that is sort of horrendous, also the fact that it will be one other "money = life" scenarios that is pretty disturbing, your income should not affect your right to life.
On this actual debate, it's expecitng people who have shown they have poor judgement (read, they are criminal) have good judgement. It's not like they can say, twenty years on "I probably should have stayed six more months" after the have been on dialisys for fifty years. I can think of little that is as permanent as donating your organ, if you chose a lousy partner you can leave them, if you get a crappy job you can quit, or if you punch some guy in the face you go to jail for a while, but after a while, usually before deaht, you get out, and you can apply your new knowledge.
I guess you could always buy a new kidney though? Assuming ofcourse you managed to get a high paying job despite your lack of kidney and criminal record. Whoops, that's almost impossible. nevermind.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
This line of argument has come up a few times. I think you're missing the concern that six-months-for-a-kidney is not a fair trade. Prisoners, as a captive population under duress, will probably make the bad trade. We aren't thinking, "Oh no! People in a bad situation will take action to get out!" We're thinking, "Oh no! People in a bad situation will act irrationally to get out, and the government will take advantadge of their strained judgement!"
Does that help?
Also, re: extended prison time, I think the more immediate concern is what someone mentioned earlier, that courts, not politicians, will be assigning longer terms whenever possible in order to compensate for the effects of this law. I think we'd see that, not because of organ greed, but out of righteousness--I mean hell, what's the point of jailing these thugs if they'll just get out six months early? Better give 'em the maximum so it will sting. =|
Why dont we just cut through the bullshit. Anyone with a sentence of longer than 12 months gets all their organs harvested and the leftovers are used to make soilent green.
I mean, these are criminals were talking about here. Right?
Edit: Holy Shit! Ctrl+I puts in the italics flags now!
First Objection: this scheme takes advantage of people who are too uneducated and out of sorts to make a rational decision. Prisoners will wind up trading away something irreplaceably valuable for a few months of freedom, because they don't understand or fully appreciate the long term consequences of losing a kidney.
Response: you may picture a dark room, bare bulbs, and a shady guy with a knife, however, I don't think that has to be the scene. If the concern is merely over the convicts' abilities to make a rational choice, then why not mandate disclaimers, or medical and psychological interviews with neutral third parties? The problem of informed consent is tangential to the program as a whole.
Second Objection: It is impossible to offer real consent from within a prison, regardless of how informed you are. The conditions are so poor that they'll do anything to get out--anything.
Second Response: there are two important points to be made here. Not only is the fact that they'll do anything to get out usually indicative of the fact that it's worth anything to get out (and therefore, offering them the chance to get out earlier is actually quite a boon), but also, if conditions are terrible then that's its own problem, independently of these questions of sentencing.
Third Objection: this offers an incentive for the state to imprison people wantonly, which is unjust and frightening.
Third Response: The economics simply aren't in place for that, as Shinto has pointed out. The prison population is already large enough to meet donation needs, and furthermore, there will be no revenue generated by the donations. No one in the judicial or correctional fields will get any kickbacks from this, and regardless, there is some presumption of competence and integrity in regards to our public system. We can't operate under the assumption that any public endeavor will succumb to corruption: surely, it's wise to avoid enterprises that are inherently vulnerable to corruption, however, as has been said, there's no especially problematic vector in this situation by which we can expect it to go wrong.
Slap yourself across the mouth, you silly pollyanna faggot.
Well, there is an assumption that civil enterprises generally won't succumb to corruption unless there's something in it for someone and rather lax oversight.
So, I don't have a boner for prison guards, no. However, as has been pointed out, they aren't actually being incentivized to drum up donations--there's nothing in if for them. If I were to be presented with a specific way in which we would expect them to act, such that they would both be abusing the intent of the law and profiting from it, then I would be concerned. However, operating from blind faith that they'll find a way seems a bit tinfoil hatty.
I don't have to wave away anything. 80,000 people dying for lack of an organ is a greater evil than 80,000 people lossing an organ.
I think it is disgusting to sentence those people to death next year because you consider the choice offered to the inmates is ethically grey. And I find it even more disgusting that you and guo seek to excuse yourself from the moral consequences of your choice by advocating ideal solutions that have failed to manifest themselves in reality and trite one liners like "Not doing the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing."
Live in the real world guys.
No, you're being too trusting.
This is just like that time we couldn't impliment social security because if politicians controlled old people's retirement money they could force them to vote anyway they chose. Man I'm glad we left that one alone.
Please read again, those people die because those organs are vital, that means that if you take those organs from prisoners they will die aswell, there might be a few exceptions, but nowhere near 80k.
Stop using irrelevant data
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
You have two kidneys. You only technically need the one. Unless you, like, have to go more than an hour between pitstops regularly. Among other actual health-complications.
so 80 000 people die from lack of kidneys each year?
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry