Donate organs - reduce your prison sentence

[Jacob]

You 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.

[Barrister]

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.

[Valmy]

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

Organs? Oh hell no.

[crazy canuck]

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

[Barrister]

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".

[Admiral Yi]

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

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

[Barrister]

Complete 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).

[crazy canuck]

Complete 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.

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

What other factors are missing?  They are not minors. 

Complete 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.

[Admiral Yi]

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).

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?

[Valmy]

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.

[Barrister]

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).

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.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

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.

[Zoupa]

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

[Zoupa]

Would or should, same question.

[Admiral Yi]

Let'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.