Death-Row Transplant: State is wasting money

[okarol]

State is wasting money on death-row health care
By By David Delgado
June 14, 2009 6:00 AM

On Sept. 18, 1995, Horacio Alberto Reyes-Camarena repeatedly stabbed two sisters, 18 and 30, whom he had met at a farm labor camp. The younger bled to death but the elder survived with 17 stab wounds to testify against him. In 1996, Reyes-Camarena was sentenced to Oregon's death row. He was placed under protection of the state.

When it was discovered that his kidney was failing, the state covered the costs for his treatment, using $121,000 taxpayers' dollars per year to pay for dialysis. On top of that, his prison doctor stated that he deserved a kidney transplant, a procedure that would cost the state an additional $100,000, so that he would be able to stay healthy until the date of his execution.

One would hope that this was a rare case, but unfortunately, Horacio is one of many death row inmates who receive premier treatment, cutting in front of thousands of others who are waiting for the same procedures. I think it is a little ironic that this murderer receive the transplant while 17 innocent people die every day in the U.S. waiting for this surgery, and the state of Oregon is paying for it. As an Oregonian who has watched my elementary school and 2 others close while our high school was forced to cut days, classes, and teachers due to lack of state funding, I find it not only irresponsible but negligible for the state to be paying for such outrageous procedures to keep alive a man who has been sentenced sentenced to die.

Oregon is not alone in this excessive spending, however. Last year, California's overseer of the state's prison health care system petitioned for $8 billion over the next five years to build seven advanced medical facilities for inmates throughout the state. These facilities will provide premium health care for the inmates, many of whom have had horrible health problems due to drug use, lack of hygiene or gang violence previous to their admittance to the penitentiary.

Is it right for the government to be spending billions of dollars providing better health care for those that have broken the rules then for the thousands of innocents who can't afford insurance? No!

Now, understand me when I say that I am not suggesting that inmates should not be cared for or that they should be given bad treatment, but I find it outrageous when cases like Reyes-Camarena come up, where the government is setting a man who will soon be executed for his crimes as a higher priority than those who need the help most. Who are they to claim the authority to make that decision? The poor and uninsured need treatment just as much. The government should treat inmates, especially those on death row, with the same care and urgency as every other citizen that it declares to protect. That is why it is there, right?

Now, some may argue that inmates on death row should be treated with such high levels of care because there is a chance they are not guilty. Of them I ask why the government should do this when it is not providing even basic care for thousands who are known to be innocent.

The government should take this wasted spending and allocate it to the areas that could lower the number of inmates convicted in the first place: the public school system. It is proven that higher education directly relates to lower crime rates and incarceration. With Oregon's education system ranked last among the 50 states in many areas, and being one of only five states to receive a "D" overall grade according to last year's report by Education Week's Quality Counts, it is an understatement to say that much needs to be done.

It is not acceptable that criminals who have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty receive transplants, complex surgeries and advanced treatments ahead of others and at the cost of the state while our schools are ranked as some of the lowest in the nation. Why should Reyes-Camarena and others like him receive $121,000-per-year treatments while the Oregon House and Senate are forced to cut $116 million for the coming school year?

Take this money that ensures the premium health of soon-to-be-executed inmates and reallocate it to programs that boost overall education, driving down the crime rate and in turn reducing the number of crimes punishable by death.

The solution is simple. What is holding us back?

David Delgado, a graduate of St. Mary's School in Medford, is a sophomore at Stanford University.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090614/OPINION/906140304/-1/NEWSMAP

[Romona]

I agree with the author that finds it ironic that they want to keep this man healthy until his execution. I think that they should treat him and try to keep him comfortable until the time comes. Giving him a transplant is a bad decision in my opinion.  If I donated my loved ones organs and found out later that the person was executed, I would be highly upset. I think it would be a disgrace to all those that advocate for donation.

[cariad]

I also agree with the author. I am the type that believes that everyone should have access to a transplant, but Oregon has just found my line and crossed it. He sounds like an excellent candidate for longterm dialysis, which may offer him a higher quality of life until he is executed anyway.

How exactly is this person going to pass the psychosocial part of the eval? It is not the wasted money that bothers me, but the wasted kidney. And of course, it is scandalous and yet again gives organ donation a bad name.

[paul.karen]

Only people to blame our our ELECTED officials.
This is a shame to say the very least.  I wonder if he will leave his organs when he is put to death.  Greedy useless piece of trash will likely take them with him as he laughs all the way to hell.

And they say crime doesnt pay??

[twirl]

without a kidney, I am on death row
where is the concern for me?
I guess I need to go and commit a death row sentence crime -
would I be moved up on the transplant list ?
I mean -- I can not sing and neither could my dad -

[Hanify]

I don't believe in the death penalty in the first place.

[glitter]

I do believe in the death penalty- but setting that aside, how could they justify wasting a kidney on someone who will be executed?

I agree this just gives organ donation a bad name, I guarantee there will be people who see this and decide not to donate because they don't want some scumbag in prison getting their organs.

[Hanify]

If you want to give a kidney altruistically, you have to not care who it goes to.  You also have to be prepared for the possibility that the recipient will 'waste' it - not do the right things and cause it to fail.  You cannot make a decision in advance that it will only go to a worthy cause cos it might not.  So, yes, donors need to be aware that their kidney could go to someone who they don't think deserves it.  But should that be our decision?  I don't want to play God and say who should or shouldn't get a kidney.  The man on death row may not eventually get executed, so he should go on a list just like anyone else.

[Kitsune]

State is wasting money on death-row health care
By By David Delgado
June 14, 2009 6:00 AM

On Sept. 18, 1995, Horacio Alberto Reyes-Camarena repeatedly stabbed two sisters, 18 and 30, whom he had met at a farm labor camp. The younger bled to death but the elder survived with 17 stab wounds to testify against him. In 1996, Reyes-Camarena was sentenced to Oregon's death row. He was placed under protection of the state.

When it was discovered that his kidney was failing, the state covered the costs for his treatment, using $121,000 taxpayers' dollars per year to pay for dialysis. On top of that, his prison doctor stated that he deserved a kidney transplant, a procedure that would cost the state an additional $100,000, so that he would be able to stay healthy until the date of his execution.

One would hope that this was a rare case, but unfortunately, Horacio is one of many death row inmates who receive premier treatment, cutting in front of thousands of others who are waiting for the same procedures. I think it is a little ironic that this murderer receive the transplant while 17 innocent people die every day in the U.S. waiting for this surgery, and the state of Oregon is paying for it. As an Oregonian who has watched my elementary school and 2 others close while our high school was forced to cut days, classes, and teachers due to lack of state funding, I find it not only irresponsible but negligible for the state to be paying for such outrageous procedures to keep alive a man who has been sentenced sentenced to die.

Oregon is not alone in this excessive spending, however. Last year, California's overseer of the state's prison health care system petitioned for $8 billion over the next five years to build seven advanced medical facilities for inmates throughout the state. These facilities will provide premium health care for the inmates, many of whom have had horrible health problems due to drug use, lack of hygiene or gang violence previous to their admittance to the penitentiary.

Is it right for the government to be spending billions of dollars providing better health care for those that have broken the rules then for the thousands of innocents who can't afford insurance? No!

Now, understand me when I say that I am not suggesting that inmates should not be cared for or that they should be given bad treatment, but I find it outrageous when cases like Reyes-Camarena come up, where the government is setting a man who will soon be executed for his crimes as a higher priority than those who need the help most. Who are they to claim the authority to make that decision? The poor and uninsured need treatment just as much. The government should treat inmates, especially those on death row, with the same care and urgency as every other citizen that it declares to protect. That is why it is there, right?

Now, some may argue that inmates on death row should be treated with such high levels of care because there is a chance they are not guilty. Of them I ask why the government should do this when it is not providing even basic care for thousands who are known to be innocent.

The government should take this wasted spending and allocate it to the areas that could lower the number of inmates convicted in the first place: the public school system. It is proven that higher education directly relates to lower crime rates and incarceration. With Oregon's education system ranked last among the 50 states in many areas, and being one of only five states to receive a "D" overall grade according to last year's report by Education Week's Quality Counts, it is an understatement to say that much needs to be done.

It is not acceptable that criminals who have committed crimes worthy of the death penalty receive transplants, complex surgeries and advanced treatments ahead of others and at the cost of the state while our schools are ranked as some of the lowest in the nation. Why should Reyes-Camarena and others like him receive $121,000-per-year treatments while the Oregon House and Senate are forced to cut $116 million for the coming school year?

Take this money that ensures the premium health of soon-to-be-executed inmates and reallocate it to programs that boost overall education, driving down the crime rate and in turn reducing the number of crimes punishable by death.

The solution is simple. What is holding us back?

David Delgado, a graduate of St. Mary's School in Medford, is a sophomore at Stanford University.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090614/OPINION/906140304/-1/NEWSMAP

I've spent 5 years on my own personal death row (the UNOS kidney list), and no elected official has come to my aid or given a damn about me  but murderous criminals get jumped up the list even though they have taken a life themselves. If I were an organ donor, I'd be livid...Hell, I already am, seeing that these people get a kidney while I wait. We need to write to our elected officials and let them know that this is unacceptable that decent,law-abiding citizens die waiting while murderers, abusers and rapists get all the help in the world.

I don't feel sorry for them. If these black-hearted miscreants wanted to live so badly, they wouldn't have taken someone else's life. I say, if they don't like dialysis, they can opt for their execution to be done sooner. It wouldn't make ME sad.

[glitter]

If you want to give a kidney altruistically, you have to not care who it goes to.  You also have to be prepared for the possibility that the recipient will 'waste' it - not do the right things and cause it to fail.  You cannot make a decision in advance that it will only go to a worthy cause cos it might not.  So, yes, donors need to be aware that their kidney could go to someone who they don't think deserves it.  But should that be our decision?  I don't want to play God and say who should or shouldn't get a kidney.  The man on death row may not eventually get executed, so he should go on a list just like anyone else.

I don't think you can compare a convicted murderer on deathrow to someone who has a difficult time being compliant to what a transplant patient has to be compliant about. Even if they 'waste the kidney' by doing things that they know could cause their kidney to fail sooner, that person is still morally so far ahead of some scumbag on deathrow.
  Part of my objection, beyond the morally (to me) obvious, is why should the deathrow inmate get lifetime (however short that is) immunosuppresants for free.... People who can't qualify for a transplant because they can't pay for the drugs after medicare runs out- have to watch this jerk get a transplant, a free ride, then gets executed by the state? Its just stupid.

 

[Hanify]

But where do we stop?  Is it only death row people who shouldn't get one?  What about just your average criminal?  Would you be happy for a rapist/abuser to get one at all?  What if he's been accused of rape/assault but got off on a technicality.  Sorry I'm being the devil's advocate here, but I think it's a lot harder than you think to make a rule like that.  And that's probably why there's this seemingly ridiculous situation happening in the first place.

[glitter]

But where do we stop?  Is it only death row people who shouldn't get one?  What about just your average criminal?  Would you be happy for a rapist/abuser to get one at all?  What if he's been accused of rape/assault but got off on a technicality.  Sorry I'm being the devil's advocate here, but I think it's a lot harder than you think to make a rule like that.  And that's probably why there's this seemingly ridiculous situation happening in the first place.

I don't think average criminals should qualify....and no, I think if your convicted of a crime, AND doing time- its too bad for you. There are consequences to being a criminal, and getting better,free healthcare then the average person should not be a perk. If it costs you your life- then don't commit crimes. and if that means a death sentence for a shoplifter- so be it. You shouldn't be a criminal. Sorry- just my opinion. I'm am so sick of criminals having more rights then victims.

[paul.karen]

Wow how hard of a decision is it to give a murderer a kidney.  My first instinct is HELL NO.  See that wasnt hard at all.

next it will be a young girl that gets raped dies giving birth cause some people took away the ability to have an abortion.  Her parnets decide to donate her organs and low and behold her rapist gets them cause he has bad kidneys and JUMPED the line cause he is on prison for a rape conviction..
Wouldnt that suck for the poor family.
I think people who donate should be able to say they dont want THERE organs going to whomever they choose.  I sure wouldn't want my organs saving a baby raper or double murderer or an illegal alien for that matter.  This is my choice even though we dont get that choice.

[Romona]

I remember posting on another thread about this. At that time I agreed more with Hanify. that thread was more of a what if scenario. I really am glad it is not up to me to make these decisions.

[KarenInWA]

My thoughts on this run with the majority on this board.  If I were on the list, and had been on it for a long time, especially, and I found out that a DEATH ROW inmate got a kidney over me or any of the countless other deserving patients on the list, my anger would be so great that my fragile health would be compromised.  I am sorry, but yes, quality of life should play a factor here.  What is the death row inmate going to do with his donated kidney?  Pee in the out-in-the-open toilet in his cell?  Whooptee-doo!!!  The rest of us law-abiding, unlucky CKD5 patients would have the ability to do so much more with what is the most precious gift - life unattached to a machine.  What difference does it make if he lives his days attached to a machine?  I mean, really!!!  He still is alive, he does, after all, have dialysis.  So do the rest of us, but we also don't live in cell block 8 with 1 hr a day to walk out to the excercise yard.  We actually have LIVES, mainly because we are smart enough to not kill or rape others.  Wow! Imagine that!  Now, in the case that he was wrongly accused, fine, cross that bridge when we get there.  But, if the evidence is there, meaning witnesses and/or DNA samples, then I'm sorry.  Dude is guilty.  That precious kidney needs to go to someone who DESERVES it!!!

KarenInWA

[Hanify]

Yeah, I guess if they're actually innocent then that's just their bad luck eh?  I don't believe people should be able to choose who their kidney doesn't go to because you would then have people making that decision based on race or religion as well.  And it's impossible to make criminality the factor, cos where's the line?  You can have a kidney if you burgled someone, but not if you thumped someone while you did it?  Which crimes knock you out of the running?  All of them?  What about the fact that our criminal justice system is skewed against minorities, and that you are far more likely to be jailed for a crime if you are a dark skinned person in the States?  I still think the bigger issue is capitol punishment itself - not whether you give them kidneys.

[Sunny]

If you're in jail you should be precluded from kidney transplants. Dialysis can keep incarcerated people alive and that should be all they get. People in jail forfeit many of their rights. That's what happens when you end up in jail!

[KarenInWA]

There's one thing I'm trying to understand, Hannify.  You say "but what if they're innocent, is that just their bad luck?"  Well, all the other CKD5 patients out there on the waiting list are innocent and just trying to live life one day at a time with their families, friends, co-workers, etc.  Does that mean it's just their "bad luck" when a death row inmate gets a kidney over them?  Meanwhile, they get to live out their bad luck attached to a machine, while the inmate gets to live in a jail cell unattached to a machine.  Heck, I guess another way to look at this is pity the poor inmate,  because now he hast to spend even MORE hours in that sad, little cell now that he doesn't need to be attached to a machine anymore.  Maybe dialysis was his chance to feel a taste of "normal" life.  Think about it.  I think there isn't a bigger waste of a more precious commodity like a kidney, then to waste it on an inmate in prison, where all he can do with it is sit in that jail cell and pee in his metal toilet.  Give the kidney to a free citizen, and that kidney gets to love, laugh, taste life, travel, cry, hug, do sports, have picnics, attend weddings and graduations no matter where they're located!  Think about it.  A donated kidney is NOT to be wasted.

KarenInWA

[Hanify]

Don't get me wrong -  do think it's a waste of a good kidney.  My point I guess is that I believe legally prisoners should have the same rights even though they've done wrong.  I don't believe they should be locked away forever with only bread and water.  I believe they should be rehabilitated, and eventually let out.  If I believe that, then they have as much right to a kidney as any other person.  I certainly don't think they should be bumped up a list in any way.

[Wallyz]

I totally get being irritated at this type of story.  I just want to say that I am glad and proud to be in a country where we are debating giving organs to prisoners, instead of selling prisoner's organs.

[paul.karen]

Rehabilitation you say.

You should look at some statistics i think.
Child molesters who rarely get the time they deserve for ruining a childs whole life usually get out and re repeat there crimes.  It is on TV almost daily.  But usually the second and third time they molest a child they end up killing them to cover there tracks.

Dont get me wrong some people i quess do get rehabilitated but they are far and few in between.  Prison is prison and i think they have to many privileges.  They should have no TV, no computer access they lose there rights for what they did.  People have a choice in life.

Funny how you can rape a woman and get 20 to 30.
But if you rape and kill that same person you get 15-20.

We need to let the people in jail for possesing some weed out and make room for the serious criminals like gangbangers and rapist murderers.

Karen you make excellent points IMO.

[RightSide]

Why can't a judge sentence Mr. Reyes-Camarena to "Death By Uremia"?

[fluffy]

why not try rxperimental therapy on prisoners. they're still getting top notch medical care and if anything goes wrong its no great loss and we learn from the experience.

[glitter]

why not try rxperimental therapy on prisoners. they're still getting top notch medical care and if anything goes wrong its no great loss and we learn from the experience.

As much as I disagree with prisoners getting the best healthcare in the country- I think experimenting on them would make us Nazi's.

[fluffy]

i dont mean force them to take part. theyd have to consent to it naturally. like with the ads for med experimentation i n the papers except without pay