That's like saying it's unfair to Jews and Muslims that the grocery store sells delicious bacon.
What private businesses sell is a bit different from not being able to leave prison for half a year more than you could have got out because of your religion.
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.
I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.
Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.
Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. (It may be a series.)
The perspective of the book would be that this creates an incentive for longer sentences and criminalization of more acts outside of any claims of reformation or separation from society. I agree with it.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
Bullshit.
I fail to see the political potency of the dying-for-lack-of-an-organ lobby. If this was a genuinely powerful political force the selling of organs would be legal right now. But it is not because the lobby is not powerful.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
In that scenario the state government has an incentive to encourage people to drink but encouraging people to drink isn't really a bad thing because the choice is still in people's hands. That's not the same as the state having an incentive to abuse people in their criminal proceedings. That's the issue.
I think it can be worked around by playing around with the incentive and who is eligible for it.
That's like saying it's unfair to Jews and Muslims that the grocery store sells delicious bacon.
What private businesses sell is a bit different from not being able to leave prison for half a year more than you could have got out because of your religion.
I submit it is not a rational policy to condemn many to death and many to prison for fear that some few will voluntarily choose to remain in prison.
Your claims to care about freedom seem a little trite and cheap.
Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.
I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.
Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.
Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. (It may be a series.)
The perspective of the book would be that this creates an incentive for longer sentences and criminalization of more acts outside of any claims of reformation or separation from society. I agree with it.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
Bullshit.
I fail to see the political potency of the dying-for-lack-of-an-organ lobby. If this was a genuinely powerful political force the selling of organs would be legal right now. But it is not because the lobby is not powerful.
No its not. Its like saying a significant revenue generating liquor tax encourages politicians to increase the liquor tax.
Except in the situation we are talking about, the people who drink liquor cant vote.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
In that scenario the state government has an incentive to encourage people to drink but encouraging people to drink isn't really a bad thing because the choice is still in people's hands. That's not the same as the state having an incentive to abuse prisoners who don't have much choice in their criminal proceedings. That's the issue.
I think it can be worked around by playing around with the incentive and who is eligible for it.
So you contend that local governments abuse their power to give speeding tickets so that they can raise funds?
Or does this principle you are talking about only work in a hypothetical universe divorced from any observable phenomenon?
Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.
I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.
Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.
Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. (It may be a series.)
The perspective of the book would be that this creates an incentive for longer sentences and criminalization of more acts outside of any claims of reformation or separation from society. I agree with it.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
Bullshit.
I fail to see the political potency of the dying-for-lack-of-an-organ lobby. If this was a genuinely powerful political force the selling of organs would be legal right now. But it is not because the lobby is not powerful.
No its not. Its like saying a significant revenue generating liquor tax encourages politicians to increase the liquor tax.
Except in the situation we are talking about, the people who drink liquor cant vote.
And they're not allowed to stop drinking until the state says they are.
Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.
I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.
Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.
Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. (It may be a series.)
The perspective of the book would be that this creates an incentive for longer sentences and criminalization of more acts outside of any claims of reformation or separation from society. I agree with it.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
Bullshit.
I fail to see the political potency of the dying-for-lack-of-an-organ lobby. If this was a genuinely powerful political force the selling of organs would be legal right now. But it is not because the lobby is not powerful.
No its not. Its like saying a significant revenue generating liquor tax encourages politicians to increase the liquor tax.
Except in the situation we are talking about, the people who drink liquor cant vote.
The government clearly isn't responsive to the needs of those dying for lack of an organ.
This would seem to take all the air out of your apocalyptic vision in which the criminal justice system is bent to their whims.
Ive no problem with this, other than the fact that it is based on a rewards system - and (as the article said) not a means of altruism.
As for "why dont we just legalize organ farming" - probably the same reason we dont legalize ho'ing - because of the abuse and exploitation that would occur.
Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.
I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.
Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.
Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. (It may be a series.)
The perspective of the book would be that this creates an incentive for longer sentences and criminalization of more acts outside of any claims of reformation or separation from society. I agree with it.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
Bullshit.
I fail to see the political potency of the dying-for-lack-of-an-organ lobby. If this was a genuinely powerful political force the selling of organs would be legal right now. But it is not because the lobby is not powerful.
No its not. Its like saying a significant revenue generating liquor tax encourages politicians to increase the liquor tax.
Except in the situation we are talking about, the people who drink liquor cant vote.
The government clearly isn't responsive to the needs of those dying for lack of an organ.
This would seem to take all the air out of you apocalyptic vision in which the criminal justice system is bent to their whims.
No, but the situation is a win win for politicians. There is no benefit to not being "tough on crime" and there is no benefit to not being "for people living"
Hey, didn't some scientists recently use a bunch of stem cells to grow a functioning kidney in a petri dish? Why not just legalize that instead of extorting organs from prisoners?
You will be given fluids through an IV and pain medication. Kidney removal surgery is often very painful because of the location.
The health care team will carefully watch your blood pressure and electrolytes and fluid balance. These body functions are controlled in part by the kidneys. You will most likely have a urinary catheter (tube to drain urine) in place for a short time during your recovery.
You will probably remain in the hospital for 2 to 7 days, depending on the method of surgery used. You will be encouraged to return to light activities as soon as you feel up to it. Strenuous activity should be avoided for 6 weeks following the procedure.
Please do not drive for 3 weeks after surgery. Because of discomfort from your surgery, you may not be able to respond quickly enough in an emergency. This is especially true if you are taking strong pain medicine. After 3 weeks, drive only if your pain is well controlled, and you are not taking pain medicine that makes you drowsy.
The average person cannot afford to take three weaks off of his life in order to donate an organ such as a kidney unless the price of a kidney was extremely high. If the price of a kidney was very high, this would fuck over people with a lower income.
No, but the situation is a win win for politicians. There is no benefit to not being "tough on crime" and there is no benefit to not being "for people living"
Yes it is clear from the lack of controversy this bill has engendered that there is almost no political resistance to it at all.
Were the dynamic as you suggest then I submit that we would currently be getting a lot more economic benefit out of our prison population than we currently are. But we are not, which would seem to disprove your assessment of the situation.
I don't have a problem with this in principle. However, I would rather see it done in an informal manner.
Let Donate Life and the state board of health attempt to 'recruit' donors from prisons without using incentives. Then, when a prisoner's parole hearing comes up, one of the factors that can be calculated into whether or not they get to walk is if they donated an organ. There would be no guarantee that donation = early parole, but it should be one of many determining factors.
I'm not sure your idea is much better. I mean, I like it in theory, where a prisoner can decide whether or not to altruistically donate his organs, and the parole board can consider such altruism. In practice, I see it becoming a means of bribing the inmates.
I just see no good coming from this. Well, okay I see good for those who get organs, but I see a net bad.
Supposedly, parole boards look at psych evaluations designed to determine if a prisoner's efforts to be nice to other people are actually motivated by a desire to give back to society rather than an attempt to game the system.
Supposedly.
Let's just start by 'recruiting' for organs from prisons. No express or implied incentive. No consideration for parole or early release. Let's test that DOC officer's claim (from the article) that some prisoners would be happy to give a kidney out of the goodness of their hearts.
And, no, don't let the DOC fucking do it, because I don't trust anybody who collects a paycheck from any DOC as far as I could throw them. Let the state health board or some independent nonprofit do it.
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.
No, but the situation is a win win for politicians. There is no benefit to not being "tough on crime" and there is no benefit to not being "for people living"
Yes it is clear from the lack of controversy this bill has engendered that there is almost no political resistance to it at all.
What makes you think this won't be popular with a lot of people? A lot of people hated the three strikes policy, but that doesn't mean it was popular with the bases of many politicians.
You will be given fluids through an IV and pain medication. Kidney removal surgery is often very painful because of the location.
The health care team will carefully watch your blood pressure and electrolytes and fluid balance. These body functions are controlled in part by the kidneys. You will most likely have a urinary catheter (tube to drain urine) in place for a short time during your recovery.
You will probably remain in the hospital for 2 to 7 days, depending on the method of surgery used. You will be encouraged to return to light activities as soon as you feel up to it. Strenuous activity should be avoided for 6 weeks following the procedure.
Please do not drive for 3 weeks after surgery. Because of discomfort from your surgery, you may not be able to respond quickly enough in an emergency. This is especially true if you are taking strong pain medicine. After 3 weeks, drive only if your pain is well controlled, and you are not taking pain medicine that makes you drowsy.
The average person cannot afford to take three weaks off of his life in order to donate an organ such as a kidney unless the price of a kidney was extremely high. If the price of a kidney was very high, this would fuck over people with a lower income.
Get real. 40% of the American population doesn't even have a job.
And I doubt anyone who chooses to give up their kidney for a lot of money thinks they are fucked over. And who are you to tell them what to do with their body and what is good for them? Exactly what rights are all set to die to defend?
No, but the situation is a win win for politicians. There is no benefit to not being "tough on crime" and there is no benefit to not being "for people living"
Yes it is clear from the lack of controversy this bill has engendered that there is almost no political resistance to it at all.
What makes you think this won't be popular with a lot of people? A lot of people hated the three strikes policy, but that doesn't mean it was popular with the bases of many politicians.
O, I'm sure the crucial Jehovah's Witness democraphic will come out against it.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
In that scenario the state government has an incentive to encourage people to drink but encouraging people to drink isn't really a bad thing because the choice is still in people's hands. That's not the same as the state having an incentive to abuse prisoners who don't have much choice in their criminal proceedings. That's the issue.
I think it can be worked around by playing around with the incentive and who is eligible for it.
So you contend that local governments abuse their power to give speeding tickets so that they can raise funds?
Or does this principle you are talking about only work in a hypothetical universe divorced from any observable phenomenon?
I'm not saying it's sure to happen. Just having that strong of an incentive for lawmakers to abuse a system that is so frail and so important is probably a bad idea. But I think it's possible to be worked around even though I can't think of a specific way right now.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
In that scenario the state government has an incentive to encourage people to drink but encouraging people to drink isn't really a bad thing because the choice is still in people's hands. That's not the same as the state having an incentive to abuse prisoners who don't have much choice in their criminal proceedings. That's the issue.
I think it can be worked around by playing around with the incentive and who is eligible for it.
So you contend that local governments abuse their power to give speeding tickets so that they can raise funds?
Or does this principle you are talking about only work in a hypothetical universe divorced from any observable phenomenon?
I'm not saying it's sure to happen. Just having that strong of an incentive for lawmakers to abuse a system that is so frail and so important is probably a bad idea. But I think it's possible to be worked around even though I can't think of a specific way right now.
Pfft.
The incentive isn't that strong.
Like I said, we could be getting a lot more use out of our prison population, but we don't because the incentive is not, in fact, that strong to do so.
Side note: as an alternative, I'd suggest a PR campaign to be an organ donor, as well as fixing a few of the "bugs" in the organ donor system. We're throwing perfectly good bodies away all the time. There's no need to start grabbing organs from prisoners, especially since we can only get kidneys (and a few other organs) from them.
Thought: what effect would the saturation of AIDS (and other diseases) in prison environments have on organs? Bear in mind that to avoid rejection, the recipient must take immune depressors...
Side note: as an alternative, I'd suggest a PR campaign to be an organ donor, as well as fixing a few of the "bugs" in the organ donor system. We're throwing perfectly good bodies away all the time. There's no need to start grabbing organs from prisoners, especially since we can only get kidneys (and a few other organs) from them.
Thought: what effect would the saturation of AIDS (and other diseases) in prison environments have on organs? Bear in mind that to avoid rejection, the recipient must take immune depressors...
People are tested before the can give organs dude.
Side note: as an alternative, I'd suggest a PR campaign to be an organ donor, as well as fixing a few of the "bugs" in the organ donor system. We're throwing perfectly good bodies away all the time. There's no need to start grabbing organs from prisoners, especially since we can only get kidneys (and a few other organs) from them.
Thought: what effect would the saturation of AIDS (and other diseases) in prison environments have on organs? Bear in mind that to avoid rejection, the recipient must take immune depressors...
People are tested before the can give organs dude.
That is still going to vastly decrease the availability of organs to almost nothing, plus the possibility to get something "interesting" that's currently unknown.
Inhumane treatment of inmates (and prisoners in general) is an embarrassment to any civilized nation allows such cruelty, but let's focus on drawing the public's attention to that problem before objecting to proposals like this.
Side note: as an alternative, I'd suggest a PR campaign to be an organ donor, as well as fixing a few of the "bugs" in the organ donor system. We're throwing perfectly good bodies away all the time. There's no need to start grabbing organs from prisoners, especially since we can only get kidneys (and a few other organs) from them.
Thought: what effect would the saturation of AIDS (and other diseases) in prison environments have on organs? Bear in mind that to avoid rejection, the recipient must take immune depressors...
People are tested before the can give organs dude.
That is still going to vastly decrease the availability of organs to almost nothing, plus the possibility to get something "interesting" that's currently unknown.
Vastly decrease it among the .62% of the nation's prison population that have HIV/Aids.
That is really weak. You didn't even bother to look up the statistic.
Inhumane treatment of inmates (and prisoners in general) is an embarrassment to any civilized nation allows such cruelty, but let's focus on drawing the public's attention to that problem before objecting to proposals like this.
But if this counts as inhumane treatment, why should we ignore this? Also, this just needs focus until it is either passed or shot down, while the prison issue in general needs a protracted focus for changes to occur.
Inhumane treatment of inmates (and prisoners in general) is an embarrassment to any civilized nation allows such cruelty, but let's focus on drawing the public's attention to that problem before objecting to proposals like this.
But if this counts as inhumane treatment, why should we ignore this? Also, this just needs focus until it is either passed or shot down, while the prison issue in general needs a protracted focus for changes to occur.
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
How about criminal gangs kidnapping people and harvesting their organs to sell them on the market? How about first-world governments propping up bloody dictatorships in exchange for discount rates on the organs of the dictator's enemies? Are these obstacles serious enough to make you think twice about a free organ market?
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
How about criminal gangs kidnapping people and harvesting their organs to sell them on the market? How about first-world governments propping up bloody dictatorships in exchange for discount rates on the organs of the dictator's enemies? Are these obstacles serious enough to make you think twice about a free organ market?
These are problems of small supply and large demand.
It's generally agreed by economists that it is the lack of a legal organ market that produces the small supply and large demand.
I find it ironic that you argue against the solution to your problems.
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
How about criminal gangs kidnapping people and harvesting their organs to sell them on the market? How about first-world governments propping up bloody dictatorships in exchange for discount rates on the organs of the dictator's enemies? Are these obstacles serious enough to make you think twice about a free organ market?
These are problems of small supply and large demand.
It's generally agreed by economists that it is the lack of a legal organ market that produces the small supply and large demand.
I find it ironic that you argue against the solution to your problems.
People will not part with their organs freely for peanuts. They would rather be whole than have a little more pocket money. In other words, even with a free market and a large supply, prices are not going to fall past a very expensive threshold. And thus, the problems I described will not go away.
It might just be me, but I think this is a startling new low for American politicians. I cannot believe that elected legislators in a first-world country are actually entertaining the idea of locking criminals up in a place where they will most definitely be raped by other criminals, and then offering them six months less daily rape in exchange for their fucking organs. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?
This is a product of a system that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings, whose health can acceptably be ignored by those responsible for supervising them and, apparently, whose organs can acceptably be extorted. This cannot happen.
Vastly decrease it among the .62% of the nation's prison population that have HIV/Aids.
That is really weak. You didn't even bother to look up the statistic.
Well, you have to factor in hepatitis C as well, which will ratchet up those numbers significantly. (30% by some estimates.)
It's still not a good counter-argument.
Er, Hep instead of AIDS. (Misremembered) Also, are you compensating for the % of prisoners that are serving less than 6 months? I think there's some correlation there.
The argument, rephrased, is that getting your organs from one of the most disease-prone populations around may not be the best idea.
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
How about criminal gangs kidnapping people and harvesting their organs to sell them on the market? How about first-world governments propping up bloody dictatorships in exchange for discount rates on the organs of the dictator's enemies? Are these obstacles serious enough to make you think twice about a free organ market?
These are problems of small supply and large demand.
It's generally agreed by economists that it is the lack of a legal organ market that produces the small supply and large demand.
I find it ironic that you argue against the solution to your problems.
People will not part with their organs freely for peanuts. They would rather be whole than have a little more pocket money. In other words, even with a free market and a large supply, prices are not going to fall past a very expensive threshold. And thus, the problems I described will not go away.
There are portions of the world where slavery still exists...
There are portions of the world where slavery still exists...
Slavery's actually pretty big still, in various forms.
Forced-Sex Rings, Kidnappings, etc.
I'm not quite sure where this is going. Yes, there's some pretty horrible stuff going on in the world right now. Doesn't mean we're free to create an opportunity for more horrible stuff to happen.
There are portions of the world where slavery still exists...
Slavery's actually pretty big still, in various forms.
Forced-Sex Rings, Kidnappings, etc.
I'm not quite sure where this is going. Yes, there's some pretty horrible stuff going on in the world right now. Doesn't mean we're free to create an opportunity for more horrible stuff to happen.
Fresno California is famous for Hmong Forced Prostitution Rings.
Posts
What private businesses sell is a bit different from not being able to leave prison for half a year more than you could have got out because of your religion.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
This is like saying the state government encourages people to drink because there is a liquor tax.
Bullshit.
I fail to see the political potency of the dying-for-lack-of-an-organ lobby. If this was a genuinely powerful political force the selling of organs would be legal right now. But it is not because the lobby is not powerful.
I think it can be worked around by playing around with the incentive and who is eligible for it.
I submit it is not a rational policy to condemn many to death and many to prison for fear that some few will voluntarily choose to remain in prison.
Your claims to care about freedom seem a little trite and cheap.
No its not. Its like saying a significant revenue generating liquor tax encourages politicians to increase the liquor tax.
Except in the situation we are talking about, the people who drink liquor cant vote.
So you contend that local governments abuse their power to give speeding tickets so that they can raise funds?
Or does this principle you are talking about only work in a hypothetical universe divorced from any observable phenomenon?
The government clearly isn't responsive to the needs of those dying for lack of an organ.
This would seem to take all the air out of your apocalyptic vision in which the criminal justice system is bent to their whims.
As for "why dont we just legalize organ farming" - probably the same reason we dont legalize ho'ing - because of the abuse and exploitation that would occur.
No, but the situation is a win win for politicians. There is no benefit to not being "tough on crime" and there is no benefit to not being "for people living"
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003001.htm
http://www.bidmc.harvard.edu/display.asp?node_id=8732
The average person cannot afford to take three weaks off of his life in order to donate an organ such as a kidney unless the price of a kidney was extremely high. If the price of a kidney was very high, this would fuck over people with a lower income.
Yes it is clear from the lack of controversy this bill has engendered that there is almost no political resistance to it at all.
Were the dynamic as you suggest then I submit that we would currently be getting a lot more economic benefit out of our prison population than we currently are. But we are not, which would seem to disprove your assessment of the situation.
Supposedly, parole boards look at psych evaluations designed to determine if a prisoner's efforts to be nice to other people are actually motivated by a desire to give back to society rather than an attempt to game the system.
Supposedly.
Let's just start by 'recruiting' for organs from prisons. No express or implied incentive. No consideration for parole or early release. Let's test that DOC officer's claim (from the article) that some prisoners would be happy to give a kidney out of the goodness of their hearts.
And, no, don't let the DOC fucking do it, because I don't trust anybody who collects a paycheck from any DOC as far as I could throw them. Let the state health board or some independent nonprofit do it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What makes you think this won't be popular with a lot of people? A lot of people hated the three strikes policy, but that doesn't mean it was popular with the bases of many politicians.
Get real. 40% of the American population doesn't even have a job.
And I doubt anyone who chooses to give up their kidney for a lot of money thinks they are fucked over. And who are you to tell them what to do with their body and what is good for them? Exactly what rights are all set to die to defend?
O, I'm sure the crucial Jehovah's Witness democraphic will come out against it.
Pfft.
The incentive isn't that strong.
Like I said, we could be getting a lot more use out of our prison population, but we don't because the incentive is not, in fact, that strong to do so.
Thought: what effect would the saturation of AIDS (and other diseases) in prison environments have on organs? Bear in mind that to avoid rejection, the recipient must take immune depressors...
People are tested before the can give organs dude.
That is still going to vastly decrease the availability of organs to almost nothing, plus the possibility to get something "interesting" that's currently unknown.
Vastly decrease it among the .62% of the nation's prison population that have HIV/Aids.
That is really weak. You didn't even bother to look up the statistic.
But if this counts as inhumane treatment, why should we ignore this? Also, this just needs focus until it is either passed or shot down, while the prison issue in general needs a protracted focus for changes to occur.
I fail to see how this is inhumane.
Well, you have to factor in hepatitis C as well, which will ratchet up those numbers significantly. (30% by some estimates.)
It's still not a good counter-argument.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
EDIT: Found one.
ITT I learn about the scary rates of hep C in prisons.
Zooks.
These are problems of small supply and large demand.
It's generally agreed by economists that it is the lack of a legal organ market that produces the small supply and large demand.
I find it ironic that you argue against the solution to your problems.
I'd comment myself, but words. Words fail me.
Er, Hep instead of AIDS. (Misremembered) Also, are you compensating for the % of prisoners that are serving less than 6 months? I think there's some correlation there.
The argument, rephrased, is that getting your organs from one of the most disease-prone populations around may not be the best idea.
There are portions of the world where slavery still exists...
Slavery's actually pretty big still, in various forms.
Forced-Sex Rings, Kidnappings, etc.
Fresno California is famous for Hmong Forced Prostitution Rings.
Like.
Where I live.