Convicted Rapist to Receive Heart Transplant?

[okarol]

Convicted Rapist to Receive Heart Transplant?

Patient Empowerment
By Trisha Torrey, About.com Guide
April 25, 2011
........................

We look at healthcare rationing frequently on this blog, but it's not often that we're faced with rationing based on an ethics question.  Today we are.

Kenneth L. Pike, age 55, convicted in 1996 of two year's worth of rape and sodomy of a 13 year old girl, is perhaps days - if not hours - away from receiving a heart transplant in an Upstate New York hospital2.  He is 15 years into serving an 18 to 40 year sentence.

Should an inmate receive a heart transplant?

Here is some background:

UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing - the organization that determines who does, or does not, receive any sort of transplant) - does not recognize any "categories" of people.  There is no notation for who or what history a potential organ recipient is or has. That means an inmate (rapist, thief, murderer, any inmate) has the same status as you or me - or someone who is wealthy or famous.
There are (at least) 273 other people on the UNOS list in New York who need a heart transplant.
The cost of a heart transplant (including the before and after care) in 2008 was $787,000 - all of which will be paid for by taxpayers because Pike is incarcerated.
A heart transplant requires the donor to be dead, which, of course, severely limits the number of hearts that are available for transplant.
There have been other inmates who have received transplants in New York State, including seven bone marrow transplants, three kidney transplants and one liver transplant.  (My note:  from my understanding, no other human being had to die before those transplants could take place. I believe those are all living donor transplants.)
Here are the questions this potential heart transplant raises (you may think of more):

Should Kenneth Pike, Convicted Rapist, Receive a Donated Heart?


I am a designated organ donor, but I do not believe Kenneth Pike should receive a heart transplant.
I am NOT a designated organ donor, but I do not believe Kenneth Pike should receive a heart transplant.
I am a designated organ donor, but it's not up to me to decide whether this man should receive a heart. Let UNOS decide.
 I am NOT a designated organ donor, and it's not up to me to decide whether this man should receive a heart. Let UNOS decide.
Submit
Current Results3
Is it right that a convicted rapist (of a child, no less) receives a donor heart before an upstanding, taxpaying citizen does?
Is it right that taxpayers (many of whom can't even afford health insurance themselves) should spend $800,000 to keep this man alive?
Is it right that taxpayers (many of whom can't even afford health insurance themselves) should also pay for the privilege of spending heaven-only-knows how much per year to keep him in prison for the extended time this heart will keep him alive, too?
I wonder how the young woman he raped and sodomized for two years feels about the possibility that he would receive a healthy heart, and would possibly survive long enough to be released from prison? (She would be at least 28 years old now....)
How would you feel if it was your loved one who died, and you learned his or her heart would be given to a convicted rapist?
I am a compassionate human being, and a taxpayer in the State of New York, but I see absolutely NOTHING right about this.

I have always planned to be an organ donor. I have designated as such on my driver's license for many years, and my family knows to donate my organs when the time comes.

But if I for ONE MINUTE thought my heart would be used to keep this rapist alive, you can be sure I would withdraw my approval.

What do you think?  Please take this poll -- http://patients.about.com/b/2011/04/25/convicted-rapist-to-receive-heart-transplant.htm

•  Learn more about healthcare rationing http://patients.about.com/od/patientempowermentissues/a/rationing.htm

• Learn more about being an organ donor http://patients.about.com/od/endoflifedecisions/a/organdonation.htm

..........................................

(See an update to this post: Convicted Rapist's Heart Transplant - Update and Issues6)

[okarol]

Convicted Rapist's Heart Transplant - Update and Issues

Patient Empowerment
By Trisha Torrey, About.com Guide
April 26, 2011


It seems convicted rapist Kenneth Pike has decided against having a heart transplant1.  Many of us will heave a sigh of relief because as long as he does not receive that heart, someone (someone far more deserving) will get it.

Your reactions have been overwhelmingly in favor of NOT letting him be transplanted with a new heart2.  About 90% of you believe, as I do, that no one who has injured a child - physically and emotionally - should be given such an advantage in life.

The other 10% seem to be of the slippery slope argument, as indicated by the comments we received3.  I hear that, and for the most part, I agree that slippery slopes can create problems.

So a solution seems to be somewhere in the middle.

This one incident has called into consideration many questions about organ donation, and how the decisions are made about who should get an organ.  Since these decisions are made by UNOS 4(United Network of Organ Sharing), it seems that it needs to be UNOS that pays attention to this uproar.  I don't doubt for a second that UNOS has always felt it made its organ donation decisions as fairly as possible.  I can't imagine they ever anticipated this kind of second-guessing.  But it's here now, and they need to pay attention.

It further calls into question healthcare services provided to convicts at the expense of law abiding citizens, many of whom can't afford insurance for themselves or their families.  We've looked before at the fact that people who can't afford insurance, but who are in desperate need of healthcare, will commit crimes just so the state will pay for their care5.  There is something very wrong about this.

Some of the points made in the comments about this possible transplant to the rapist that should be considered by those in the positions to make these decisions:

It may be time to begin making some of those judgements about who is deserving vs who is not.  An idea: Why not set up a point system? Perhaps an individual gets "plus" points for the good things they have done, and "minus" points for the bad things they have done.  A convicted rapist like Kenneth Pike would get (for example) minus 100 points - the most that could be subtracted - for his crime, similar to a convicted murderer.  Maybe a second-degree murderer would get "only" 80 points subtracted.  Someone who volunteers in a soup kitchen every week for a year would get PLUS 100 points for their efforts.  None of these plusses or minuses would be affected by money donations.  Adjustments would be made for ages and opportunities to do good (obviously a child could not be included in this type of assessment - or other adjustments could be made for someone who has had a lifelong problem and could not volunteer since spending one's life in the hospital is not conducive to volunteer work.)

Other adjustments would be more difficult to determine.  Another situation raised by a commenter is the number of alcoholics who are provided with new livers or the numbers of smokers who get new lungs - then return to their drinking and smoking.  Would additions and subtractions be made for them?  Yes - probably - but within a sliding scale of some sort.

Another question asked by the slippery slope people was whether you would deny an organ to someone who stole lunch money.  Many others answered that felons that committed acts of bodily harm should be regarded very differently. Yes, there may be differences there but then, Bernie Madoff didn't commit bodily harm, yet he certainly has had a horribly negative lifelong impact on thousands.

What if Bernie Madoff needed a heart?  Such a system described above would need to account for the number of people who were hurt by an individual.

I'm just typing off the top of my head here, but you get the idea....

Additional considerations:

Some commenters say they are ready to decide to no longer be organ donors for fear that their organs would prolong the life of someone who might intentionally cause injury or death to someone else.

An interesting point was raised, too, about Christian Longo, a convicted murderer on death row in Oregon who killed his wife and three children in horribly heinous ways6.  He wants to donate his organs, and that has created its own outrage.  While I don't see that fact as a part of this particular argument about who is deserving of an organ, I do see it as a part of the bigger picture of organ donation decisions in general.

My bottom line to all this is that whether or not Kenneth Pike gets a transplanted heart, these issues will not go away.  He is the lightening rod - but these bigger questions, especially when there are so many deserving people, and so few organs to go around, must be addressed by UNOS and others who work in the organ donation decision-making field.

What other issues do you see?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agree? Disagree?
Share your experience or join the conversation!

NEWSLETTER 7 | FORUM8 | TWITTER9
FACEBOOK10 | CONNECT11

http://patients.about.com/b/2011/04/26/convicted-rapists-heart-transplant-update-and-issues.htm

[greg10]

Convicted Rapist to Receive Heart Transplant?

Patient Empowerment
By Trisha Torrey, About.com Guide
April 25, 2011..

See felony disenfranchisement.  Many states already take away a felony convicts right to vote and sometimes an ex-convict's right to vote as well.  You can see that some of the health care rights of convicts could be taken away as well.  The only problem is that there may be a small minority of wrongly convicted prisoners in every justice system.  This is clearly a states issue but how far can each state takes this?  Perhaps an ex-convict should not be able to get a transplant as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

[jbeany]

The system isn't perfect.  That's true for UNOS and for our justice system as well.  UNOS doesn't make judgments on who "deserves" a kidney.  Personally, I don't want them to start.  Currently, 187 people have been released from death row because they were found not guilty for a variety of reasons.  They were sentenced to death for something they didn't do.  So the author wants UNOS to start making decisions about guilt, innocence and worthiness as well?  When the system we've got specifically set up to dole out "justice" can't even get it right?  Leave UNOS to deal with allocating organs - they've got enough trouble dealing with determining matches and trying to keep the system fair and balanced based on age and location and compatibility.  Adding in a point system?  Really?  Quick everyone, start pretending to be a good person - you never know if you're gonna need a kidney in your old age.

Really, if they don't want prisoners to be allowed to get transplants, the elimination needs to be done at the hospital level - where the transplant team and the social workers can ask them about their support system and future job prospects and determine their "mental stability."