Languish.org

Based on this story about GOP Democrat :o lawmakers' proposal in Massachusetts.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-bill-prisoners-donate-organs-reduced-sentences/

QuoteLawmakers propose letting Massachusetts prisoners donate organs for reduced sentences

BOSTON - A new bill proposed on Beacon Hill would allow Massachusetts prisoners to donate their organs for reduced sentences.

The legislation would give people anywhere from 60 days to a year off their prison sentence "on the condition that the incarcerated individual has donated bone marrow or organ(s)."

The "act to establish the Massachusetts incarcerated individual bone marrow and organ donation program" is sponsored by Democratic Reps. Judith Garcia, of Chelsea, and Carlos Gonzalez of Springfield.

They say it would "restore bodily autonomy to incarcerated folks" and expand the pool of donors, especially for people of color who struggle to find a match. But critics strongly disagree and say it might even be illegal.

"It's like you're harvesting organs. It just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel humane," Project Turnaround founder Romilda Pereira told The Boston Globe. "You're bargaining with vulnerable people over their time."

A Brigham & Women's Hospital epidemiologist told the newspaper that the proposal was "perverse."

"There are certainly ways we can engage our free communities in educating them about the options of organ and bone marrow donation," Monik Jiménez said. "But going to our incarcerated population as a source is problematic, at best, and exploitative."

I think this is an interesting debate and I'm curious what Languishites think. I don't want to wade into whether this option should be offered for persons who committed crime X but not to those who committed crime Y, just the general principal of it.

Personally I'm a bit torn on it.

On the one hand, I feel this could be seen as another way how a convicted criminal can repay their debt to society and "do good" against the damage and harm they caused.

On the other hand, incarceration is one of the strongest measures a state can take against an individual, and in that situation the promise to get out sooner will probably create so much pressure that you have to wonder how "voluntary" such donations would be (which could lead into an argument whether criminals deserve such freedom of choice in the first place - which I think they do; I know some feel that criminals waive a whole slew rights by committing criminal acts against their fellow humans and society). Additionally, it might create more incentives, esp. in a system of for-profit prisons, to increase the number of persons (= potential donors) behind bars and lead to lobbiying from invested groups for more/harsher sentences in general.

Then there's the whole debate of trading time for literally a part of you. A year spent in prison can't be replaced (and depending on prison can be more or less traumatic). Neither can a kidney (well, your original, you might require a transplant later yourself :P ). Is giving up a kidney worth a year of freedom? Two years? Who can make those calls?

 :hmm:

Terrible

Quote from: garbon on February 03, 2023, 03:19:38 AMTerrible

That's what I lean towards because of the potential for abuse and coercion (making prisons unpleasant enough that people are eager to do anything to get out sooner).

But if, as a society, criminals are to be punished, what is an acceptable punishment is a constant debate through all ages. From exile to death penalties in vayring degrees of "humaneness", branding, public humiliation, monetary fines, removal of rights and privileges, cutting off hands, etc.

I feel it's worth reflecting on this one, too, if only to confirm that it's a terrible idea and why.

Sounds like a bad idea. And for it to even be non-insanely considered I think society would have to be in a different place regarding its view on organ donations than it is today. If selling your organs was a mainstream thing then maybe.

Apart from various practical reasons why it is a bad idea, legally it seems iffy. If you can effectively serve a year of prison time by instead donating a kidney, wouldn't that kinda make donating the kidney an alternative form of punishment, and therefore fall under some "cruel and unusual" ban? Or is there no such ban for "optional" forms of punishment?

 Organ donations sounds a bit fucked up and goes into dystopia territory.
But I can see the appeal with bone marrow. There's nothing actually lost by the donor there. But they do have to go through something very unpleasant.
The trouble then though is not all prisoners who want to do this will have matches needing their donation so its quite unfair.

I'd lean towards no on a automatic donate x=y days off policy. But it's certainly something to explore for opening up this avenue to prisoners and it being a huge factor for probation boards to consider.

Don't probation boards today take into consideration stuff like this?

You can't meaningfully consent in this situation

Ugh, hell no.

In any case, which organs can you voluntarely give up on, anyway? A kidney is the only one that comes to mind. It's not as if you can go around giving up lungs or corneas.

Quote from: The Brain on February 03, 2023, 03:44:55 AMDon't probation boards today take into consideration stuff like this?

I guess?
I've not heard of it being much promoted though

I accidently voted yes.  So I'm sticking with that one.  Let the rich harvest the poor.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2023, 04:15:18 AMYou can't meaningfully consent in this situation

Of course you can.  Yes or no.  Two choices.

This is such a bad idea, it even makes some of my ideas look sensible.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 05:48:49 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2023, 04:15:18 AMYou can't meaningfully consent in this situation

Of course you can.  Yes or no.  Two choices.

"Either you donate your kidney, or we will make your life in here a miserable hell."

My rule of thumb is that if you have an idea that could be the basis of a Black Mirror episode, then it's probably a terrible idea.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 05:48:49 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2023, 04:15:18 AMYou can't meaningfully consent in this situation

Of course you can.  Yes or no.  Two choices.

Rich and poor alike can decide to sleep under bridges

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 05:48:49 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2023, 04:15:18 AMYou can't meaningfully consent in this situation

Of course you can.  Yes or no.  Two choices.

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

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.

All of that being said though... prisoners tend not to be the healthiest group of people you'll find.  So I'm not sure how many suitable donors you'd even find in that population.

Maybe for things like blood and bone marrow and things that grow back. But even that seems...dangerous.

Organs? Oh hell no.

And incarceration rates would certainly not increase to provide a greater supply...

So I'm looking at CBS's (that's Canadian Blood Service, not the TV network) requirements for blood donations.

I can't find reference to most drugs, but the entry for cocaine is interesting - if you've used cocaine intravenously you are lifetime barred from donating blood.  So I'm going to assume that applies to the intravenous use of all street drugs.

There are also bans for people with Hep B/C, as well as HIV.

3 month deferral for tattoos - and prison ink is definitely a thing.

I really don't think this is a good idea on health and safety grounds alone, without going to the ethics of it.

Heck - part of CBS's questionnaire includes "have you been to prison in the last 12 months".

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 11:27:35 AMComplete non sequitur. The number of choices doesn't impact whether consent is meaningful.

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 11:27:35 AMComplete non sequitur. The number of choices doesn't impact whether consent is meaningful.

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

Age is hardly the only factor.  As you probably know sexual consent can be fraught with issues even if both parties are of age: imbalance of power is a big one (employer/employee, doctor/patient, priest/parishioner).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 11:27:35 AMComplete non sequitur. The number of choices doesn't impact whether consent is meaningful.

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

Sometimes I wonder if you are just playing a parody.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 11:27:35 AMComplete non sequitur. The number of choices doesn't impact whether consent is meaningful.

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 11:27:35 AMComplete non sequitur. The number of choices doesn't impact whether consent is meaningful.

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

This has got to be a troll.

Quote from: Barrister on February 03, 2023, 03:06:46 PMAge is hardly the only factor.  As you probably know sexual consent can be fraught with issues even if both parties are of age: imbalance of power is a big one (employer/employee, doctor/patient, priest/parishioner).

Is that the relevant factor here?

Priests, preachers, and I would argue to a lesser extent doctors are problematic because of the trust issue.  Catholics are programmed to believe priests, etc.  That doesn't seem to apply here.

Employer/employee relationships are fraught because of the risk of favoratism and potential legal liability.  Does that apply here?

I mean I am fine with prisoners donating organs. I am just not fine with them getting time for it. That isn't a currency I want to see organs bought with.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 04:14:23 PM

Quote from: Barrister on February 03, 2023, 03:06:46 PMAge is hardly the only factor.  As you probably know sexual consent can be fraught with issues even if both parties are of age: imbalance of power is a big one (employer/employee, doctor/patient, priest/parishioner).

Is that the relevant factor here?

Priests, preachers, and I would argue to a lesser extent doctors are problematic because of the trust issue.  Catholics are programmed to believe priests, etc.  That doesn't seem to apply here.

Employer/employee relationships are fraught because of the risk of favoratism and potential legal liability.  Does that apply here?

What all of them boil down to is this: an imbalance of power.  And that absolutely applies here.

The notion that fines from tickets laid by police can go to police department's budgets is already quite problematic (here criminal fines go into government general revenue).  Now you're going to add organs?

But like I said, I think this is much more easily dismissed on straight-up health grounds.

Quote from: Barrister on February 03, 2023, 04:49:25 PMWhat all of them boil down to is this: an imbalance of power.  And that absolutely applies here.

The notion that fines from tickets laid by police can go to police department's budgets is already quite problematic (here criminal fines go into government general revenue).  Now you're going to add organs?

But like I said, I think this is much more easily dismissed on straight-up health grounds.

Surely you are not saying that in every situation with an imbalance of power consent is impossible?  Every time I buy a product from a large corporation my consent is not meaningful?  Every time a poorer person dates a richer person?

This is different than local police forfeiture.  Mostly because the organs and marrow are not going to the benefit of the warden, or the prison staff, or whatever.

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

Would or should, same question.

Quote from: Zoupa on February 03, 2023, 05:10:35 PMLet's ask a different way. Why would prisoners get a reduced sentence for donating organs, Yi?

So that more people can get transplants.

Incidentally this is not asking whether prisoners can meaningfully consent a different way.  It's a brand new question.

Quote from: Zoupa on February 03, 2023, 05:10:35 PMLet'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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 03:01:15 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 11:27:35 AMComplete 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?

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 05:47:01 PMLet'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?

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?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 05:50:57 PMI 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?

QuoteNow 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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 06:28:32 PMHow 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 06:36:05 PMCoercing 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?

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 06:43:56 PMSo 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 06:49:02 PMIt'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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2023, 07:25:45 PMDo 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2023, 07:29:09 PMPossibly.

Thank you. I have no further questions at this time :)

Quote from: Barrister on February 03, 2023, 11:49:20 AMDonating 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.