Donate organs - reduce your prison sentence

[Barrister]

Let's ask a different way. Why would prisoners get a reduced sentence for donating organs, Yi?

OK, so this is going to depend on your local jurisdiction, but in general release dates are not set in stone.  Prisoners usually don't serve until the exact last date of their sentence - they can be released early with good behaviour.  No institutional infractions, attending programming, doing jobs within the institution, showing remorse for your actions - all can tend to get you released earlier.

Donating an organ is an incredibly selfless act that can help save the life of another human being - and someone you don't even know.  Doesn't that show "good behaviour"?

As I said I think the consent is very icky, and health concerns should shut this idea down entirely, but I think your question at least is easily answered.

[Jacob]

Complete non sequitur. The number of choices doesn't impact whether consent is meaningful.

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

Let's imagine I kidnap you. I tie you up in a basement. I tell you "Yi, you're never going to get out of this basement unless you consent to donate your kidney."

Would you say that you can meaningfully give consent to donate your kidney in that situation?

[Admiral Yi]

Let's imagine I kidnap you. I tie you up in a basement. I tell you "Yi, you're never going to get out of this basement unless you consent to donate your kidney."

Would you say that you can meaningfully give consent to donate your kidney in that situation?

I would say that coercion means no consent.

Now let's say you commit a crime and are sentenced to 10 years.  I tell you you can go home a year earlier if you donate a kidney.

Would you say that you can meaningfully consent in that situation?

[crazy canuck]

In both examples, the person being asked has lost their liberty and they are being provided with an option to gain that liberty back.

What is the meaningful difference you are trying to identify Yi?

[Jacob]

I would say that coercion means no consent.

How is coercing you to stay in a basement significantly different from coercing you to stay in a prison when it comes to consent?

Now let's say you commit a crime and are sentenced to 10 years.  I tell you you can go home a year earlier if you donate a kidney.

Would you say that you can meaningfully consent in that situation?

No I would say the coercion means no consent.

[Admiral Yi]

How is coercing you to stay in a basement significantly different from coercing you to stay in a prison when it comes to consent?

Coercing you to stay in prison is a punishment for a wrongdoing.  That's the baseline in the absence of an organ deal.  In the kidnapping you are being coerced into donating an organ.  A reduction in sentence is not coercion, it's a quid pro quo.

[Jacob]

Coercing you to stay in prison is a punishment for a wrongdoing.  That's the baseline in the absence of an organ deal.  In the kidnapping you are being coerced into donating an organ.  A reduction in sentence is not coercion, it's a quid pro quo.

So it is impossible for the state to coerce you if it decides you have engaged in a wrongdoing?

[Admiral Yi]

So it is impossible for the state to coerce you if it decides you have engaged in a wrongdoing?

It's theoretically possible.  The state could say donate a kidney or we will add 5 years to your sentence.  Donate bone marrow or we throw you in solitary.  I would consider those coercion.

[Jacob]

It's theoretically possible.  The state could say donate a kidney or we will add 5 years to your sentence.  Donate bone marrow or we throw you in solitary.  I would consider those coercion.

Interesting.

So the state saying "donate a kidney or we will add 5 years to your sentence" is coercion while "if you donate a kidney we will subtract 5 years from your sentence" is not.

In both cases the inmate has to chose between between giving up their kidney and 5 years of prison time. In one case it's coercion because the five years are additive, while in the other it's a quid pro quo because the five years are subtractive.

Do you think that if the judiciary, police, or correctional services are incentivized* to drive up donation numbers that this could lead to coercion, even in the "opt-in for reduction" scheme?

*say because their department's funding is tied to the number of organs harvested, because there are career or political benefits to making the program seem successful, or simply because indviduals could receive monetary compensation from companies buying the harvested organs.

[Admiral Yi]

Do you think that if the judiciary, police, or correctional services are incentivized* to drive up donation numbers that this could lead to coercion, even in the "opt-in for reduction" scheme?

*say because their department's funding is tied to the number of organs harvested, because there are career or political benefits to making the program seem successful, or simply because indviduals could receive monetary compensation from companies buying the harvested organs.

Possibly.

[Jacob]

Possibly.

Thank you. I have no further questions at this time

[Sheilbh]

Donating bone marrow: I don't like the idea of it being an automatic sentence reduction, but the idea that it could be used as a factor by parole boards.  Besides, bone marrow grows back.

Kidneys?  Gosh no.

Totally agree with this.