I read with personal interest the opinion piece by Daniel Hunt criticizing a recent heart transplant operation which involved a convicted felon as recipient.
First off, I’m sure that Mr. Hunt is truly concerned about the critical shortage of transplantable organs – and, of course, is himself a donor. I know two transplant recipients personally, and have met a gentleman who currently is on the waiting list for a third heart transplant. I’ve been a blood and organ donor for years.
Hunt’s article attacks the wrong end of the problem, and in the wrong way. And, I suspect, for the wrong reasons.
What he advocates is a return to the old “star chamber” system where someone – presumably a group of doctors – decides who’s worthy of a transplant.
Is an aging rock star more deserving of a transplant than a criminal? Perhaps.
How about a taxpayer vs. a welfare recipient? Does the welfare recipient get points for having worked before the illness struck? Points taken away for lack of education?
How about one of “our kind” versus one of “their kind”? Surely a Baptist deserves preference over an atheist, or a family man over a gay man.
Who decides? Hunt says he’s not making value judgments – as he judges the prisoner.
Hunt graciously would allow the prisoner’s family to pay the transplant expense. Perhaps that could be the new rule: if you have enough money, you can have the transplant. Certainly would clear up that pesky backlog of patients needing organs. Of course, it would sentence a lot of people to death, but nobody really important, after all.
In the present case, denying the heart transplant would be equivalent to sentencing the prisoner to death, for his crime of burglary. If that’s the intent, perhaps the burglary statutes need to be rewritten. Imposing that sentence in one case and not for all could be interpreted as “cruel and unusual punishment.”
As it was when the court laid down the law that’s being followed today.
The editorial was correct in one respect: The situation is only going to get worse, especially as the Hepatitis C epidemic creates a vastly larger need for donated livers. It’s going to show up in the prison system as well as the public at large, and the time to begin dealing with it is right now.
Here’s a suggestion for all those people who feel the heart should have gone to someone “more deserving.” Eliminate the problem. Change the state law from the current “donor-dot” system to an “opt-out” system where everyone obtaining a California driver’s license is automatically presumed to be a donor, unless he or she signs paperwork to decline.
You don’t even have to have a good reason. But unless you opt out, you’re a donor. Period.
When there are donated organs for everyone who needs them and five-year waiting lists are a thing of the past, then the compromises worked out to meet critical shortages may be looked at differently. Until then, treat the problem, the lack of donated organs, and not the symptoms.
Chris Leithiser
BC staff